Informer Valley Edius Pro 10 Keygen is a software explanation designed to facilitate job creation on your PC, present a trade mark aga of useful functions. In the good old days, video editing used to be a complex struggle, but now there are divers video editing software options that streamline the process. With EDIUS Pro Full Download, you go the ability to handle multiple resolutions, unlimited tracks, and charge out of real-time editing capabilities, allowing you to modify anything, anywhere. EDIUS Pro clue serves as an aberrant road for finalizing disseminate announcement, newsmagazine content, studio applications, documentaries, and corporate video content.
Grass Valley Edius Pro 2023 Break presents a comprehensive, lustful, and user-friendly image manipulation toolset. It is well-equipped to collect newfangled standards, supporting nearly all non-professional formats. Users have the alternative to try out out the премиум features before deciding to upgrade in behalf of the entire experience. In this Pro construction, Stoolie Valley has included numerous chief features in its latest update, ensuring your videos receive a experienced finish. Entr'acte assured, these features bear been designed beside a company with nationwide encounter and know-how in the field.
but does not apply the same standard when a conservative group is attacked. Well, I'd like to apply the same standard, but how many times has a conservative group been attacked? You have that 1 guy you give as an example. And? OK, how about PUBLICLY proclaiming conservatives to be killed? ... crickets? Oh, there must be an example similar to Christian preachers who were overjoyed that gays got gunned down in Orlando (Rodrigo Jimenez, Pastor Anderson), or who called for governmental extermination of gays (Pastor Anderson) or who called for gays to be put on a desert island to die (Pastor Worley), or who travelled to Africa to help write the "Kill the Gays" legislation (Pastor Lively) or who .... well, you get the idea. Countless bombings of clinics, harassment of doctors and patients, shootings. So how many times has a Christian-run equivalent been bombed or shot up? I'd like to apply the same standard, but there just hasn't been any cases to apply it to.
IDK, maybe the BLM inspired Dallas cop killings just a few months ago. Or the BLM motivated cop killings in New York last year. Or the murder of Jim Pouillon. Just googling "abortion protesters run over" brings up dozens of articles and youtube videos showing just that, with pro choice outlets like Jezebel cheering on the violence. Hell I generally support BLM. but if you are gonna blame all pro-lifers for events like the PP shooting, in order to be logically consistent you have to blame all BLMers for the Dallas and New York cop killings.
The cop killings are certainly not justified, no matter how many times the police are proven to have planted evidence or lied about shooting because they were charged at or had their gun stolen (kudos by-stander video and bodycams) nor how many times they roll-up to a 12-year old boy and open fire on him in less than 2 seconds. I agree with you there. Most cops are good cops, and there are even many within the ranks who call out the bad cops. And certainly one shouldn't cheer protesters getting run over, no matter how much they harass you, as you have told me that there are protesters who do indeed harass in another thread. But I don't see pro-choice leaders actually calling for violence in the way that there are some that do on the pro-life side. And of course, Mr. MinorityStress up above does a tremendous job in wishing me death because he thinks I'm gay. Sad to say, this is not the first time I've seen the Godly pro-life types say something like this, and probably one of the main reasons I'm having a hard time dissociating pro-life from homophobic, Christian bigotry. BTW, I'm not blaming the guy who shot-up a PP clinic (yet again) on you guys, even though he was mumbling something about baby parts, the new buzzword in your circle that seems to persist despite 20 or so states having investigated and found nothing to substantiate the claims. He was probably crazy, and this just pushed him over the edge. Of course, it seems pretty clear that had not fake videos been put out, this wouldn't have happened, but no, its not your fault at all.
also, isn't it funny that PP never sued CMP for libel? I mean, they went after them in court for using fake IDs, and that case was dropped. But they never sued for libel. Why not? I mean, if what you say is true and the videos are faked, why not sue for libel?
Uh-huh. You never have apologized for completely misjudging me and how i have tried to stop the harassing street preacher outside of my local clinic. And yeah, I am very sorry for the homophobia. however, I have a hard time distinguishing pro-choicers from ableist bigotry. After all, your side is currently exploiting ableist prejudice about people with microcephaly to legalize abortion in other countries and to legalize late term abortion in certain US states. Even disabled pro-choicers have called out this disgusting use of prejudice. The fact that you seem not to care that ableism is present throughout the medical community, and affects our right to life, not only before birth but after as well, and that so many "pro-choice" doctors pressure parents to abort for fetal abnormalities that entire support groups are filled up with parents dealing with it, shows me the true depth of your character. And you may not be aware, but there is still a federal house investigation of the PP tapes. And both the PP and the Alliance Defending Freedom paid for forensic analyses showed no evidence of video manipulation. ADF report found no substantial evidence of any manipulation. http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9764 http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/planned-parenthood-undercover-videos-report-finds-manipulation-121800.html
OK, so I apologize for misjudging you and it is admirable that you told the street preacher to STFU. But the whole idea that you put forth: a pro-life woman is in danger if she goes to a PP because she'll be harassed by pro-lifers... still sounds boundlessly stupid. To that I say... cry me a river. Maybe pro-lifers shouldn't have started a movement of directly protesting to patients going to PP, and thereby inviting the crazies to have direct access to patients, in the first place. your side I'm not necessarily a pro-choicer in the US mold. I go more the way of Europe and Japan, and think that the procedure should be restricted, and there should be no late-term abortions unless medically necessary.
Also, can you point out any well respected members of the anti-abortion movement that have advocated for vigilante violence against abortion providers?
and Black Lives Matter protests have often turned into riots in places like Baltimore, Ferguson, and Milwaukie. Should BLM activists not protest at all then, since the protest might turn into a riot which harms people and destroys the neighborhood?
No, go ahead and protest all you want. I'm just saying stop complaining about the possibility that you yourself will now be on the receiving end of the same protests that you're gladly taking part in now. turned into riots And white college students riot, oh I'm sorry "party", when their school football team loses, turning over cop cars and setting shit on fire. White people being unruly == "party" or "boys will be boys". Black people being unruly == "riot by thugs". http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-latest-kentucky-riot-is-part-of-a-long-destructive-sports-tradition/ But I digress. BLM is irrelevant to this discussion, even though now even Donald Trump is saying he's "Troubled" by the recent Tulsa shooting. I'm saying stop making yourself out to be a victim of the very protest that you're currently a part of. It sounds dumb. The analogy isn't BLM protesting. Rather, its a BLM protester who was out protesting the night before, going the next morning to catch the bus, finding the roads closed because of the burned out cars and such, and complaining about the state of his/her city. I'm not saying pro-lifers don't have a right to protest (though going up to individuals and screaming at them doesn't really seem like protest, but I digress again). Protest and partake in your hobby all you want. I'm saying then complaining about the state of affairs your protests have brought about, that these clinics aren't safe because you'll get harassed.... um, I shed crocodile tears.
Uh-huh. If we weren't out there, holding up signs that say "You and your child are both loved", crazy hateful street preacher guy would still be there. The harassment would still be there, but the kids who are alive today who were saved by our peaceful protest would not be. You assume that i don't support BLM. I do. I also support their right to protest. And if a peaceful BLM protester complains about the burned down buildings in his neighborhood because of the riots, he has every right to, because he was peacefully protesting an injustice, not burning down those buildings. He has every right to decry rioting while promoting peaceful protest of police brutality. And he shouldn't be told to stop his peaceful protests because others might escalate the situation into a riot, since the alternative is ignoring blatant injustice.
"You are so full of hubris and exaggerated self-importance." I must respectfully disagree with you. I have had an email correspondence of sorts with this guy, and he's the total opposite of what you said. He nearly always responds to his emails (unlike most of us!), and acknowledges people. He's treated me with nothing but kindness and I would be honoured to make his further acquaintance if ever I get the chance.
I have a hard time imagining that I would be able to find common ground and have a productive dialogue with somebody who thinks I ought to be classified as a "domestic terrorist."
Hi, you just talked to my abuser: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/12/the-word-is-rape.html Scroll down the Newest button on that article and look at what he did to me. He screwed with my mind, Josh. Then he tried pulling this same crp on me on this page: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/12/donald-trump-is-disaster-waiting-to.html If it hadn't been for two very good friends going to bat for me I would have been emotionally devastated. I've taken your advice; we haven't exchanged *a word since that incident. Also, even before that, he was making inappropriate comments to me on YOUR website, saying things like "I wouldn't want to procreate with you" and casting doubt on some of my words. How would you react if I told you I didn't want to procreate with you? You're lucky he didn't try screwing with your mind the way he did with me, and I think he did it because I am PL.
Another point - I respect the general commentariat at the site where I had that small confrontation, because the high majority of them have treated me with respect despite my strong stances on the matter, and I am willing to acknowledge that. However, a very small handful have been hostile and, while I respect them as people, I disagree with them and don't have much to do with them as I'd rather talk to the majority, who at least respect me despite their disagreements with my views.
Again, this is how I see it, James. Legally speaking, abortion isn't murder. But it should be made illegal so that unborn persons are protected. Morally speaking, however, it IS and I have no problem saying that without apology; I have gotten into trouble for this on more than one occasion. I'm not sorry for that. This is what I said once, and it earned me brownie points for intolerance: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/friendlyatheist1/if_the_gop_defunded_planned_parenthood_this_is_how_americans_would_suffer/#comment-2203901557 My point is that I try to remember this: Loving, truthful people are almost always more persuasive than unloving, truthful people. I would rather turn people away from belief in abortion than ridicule them for it. Sometimes, people believe in abortion because they have heard no other way and it's my job to let them know, there is another way. How am I going to communicate that if I am hostile to the people? The action, however, deserves righteous anger; I agree with you there and I admire your desire to speak out on behalf of the unborn. I hope this helps you understand better where I am coming from. I have no desire to compromise on the topic but rather to reach people with the truth and challenge them to think, and the best way to do that is to be respectful. That being said, in a way I agree with you. The PL movement has made a shoddy job of things and it's time we manned up and spoke about the action in the strongest of terms.
Fair question. No, it doesn't look like a baby to me. That's why I'm not pro-life because I get warm, fuzzy feelings when I look at an embryo. I don't. I'm pro-life because one of the strongest beliefs I have is that all human adults should have an equal right to life, and when I try to make sense of that view, I come to believe that it must be because we all have something in common, something that we have equally. Most pro-choice people I talk to think that thing is something like sentience, self-awareness, viability, or something similar. The problem with all of the pro-choice definitions I've heard is they either would give the equal right to life to lower mammals like squirrels, and/or they would exclude newborns from having an equal right to life. I think having the intrinsic ability to think and act morally is the thing that ACTUALLY makes us equal. But that's a rational view, not an emotional one.
We do not all have an "intrinsic" ability to think and act morally, and no, we are not all equal. I'm very cautious to label anything with "intrinsic value" because value is highly situational. Just as an example of that, were I to have a choice between being marooned away from civilization with a) the Hope Diamond, or b) a magnifying glass, I would find the magnifying glass to be of much greater value than the gemstone. Priceless items in such a situation quickly become "just another pebble." Adult women are of more value than any hundred fetuses, and that's just how it is.
An intrinsic ability is not the potential to develop an ability, it’s an ability that you have in virtue of the kind of thing you are. I believe that all humans, because of the kind of thing they are, are naturally ordered toward developing the ability to think and act morally, and that is what matters. You can certainly argue that that intrinsic ability is NOT something that matters morally, but arguing that not everybody has that intrinsic ability seems to me to be a losing argument. Your paragraph about intrinsic value is confusing to me, because you say that value is situational, and then describe the case where two items have different instrumental value depending on the situation. So we certainly agree about the thought experiment you made, but it's not about intrinsic value. Intrinsic value is the idea that something has value because of the kind of thing it is. Instrumental value is when something has value because somebody else values it, like dollar bills, or a magnifying glass. So when you assert that "adult women are more valuable than any hundred fetuses," I would ask you what you mean by "value." Presumably you mean "instrumental value," because it doesn't look like you meant "intrinsic value" in anything you said. I would agree that an adult woman has more instrumental value than any hundred fetuses. I would however argue that all people have equal intrinsic value, because people are things with serious moral status. I think most likely the main area where we disagree is I think a human fetus is a person, and you don't. I'm glad to discuss that. I know that fetuses are not clear cases of persons for many people. I'm open to the argument that some people are more intrinsically valuable than others, but it'll be pretty hard to convince me, because one of the strongest views I have is that all people are equally intrinsically valuable. *Enjoying the discussion, but forgive me if I don't respond quickly in the next few weeks. We're about to leave for two trips, and won't be able to access my computer very much during them. :)
Women are more valuable than fetuses both instrumentally and intrinsically. And seriously, how much "naturally ordered ability to think and act morally" does your 18 month old have? Or even a three year old? Because some humans will never progress past that point in development. And I would never chose to deliberately bring one of those into the world. That wouldn't be loving. It's difficult enough to deal with children that you don't lay awake at night worrying about what will become of them when you die. That would be a horrible burden to inflict on someone without the means to do it.
"Women are more valuable than fetuses both instrumentally and intrinsically." A huge part of the debate hinges upon that question. I'm more interested in arguments for a view versus merely asserting a view. My argument that both have the same intrinsic value is that I don't think we can make sense of human equality in a way that makes sense without excluding the unborn. I want to know WHY all humans should have an equal right to life EXCEPT for the unborn, in a way that's not ad hoc. Every attempt I've seen by pro-choice people to define personhood as something like sentience or self-awareness or viability has at least one of two problems: they either give an equal right to life to lower mammals like squirrels, or they exclude obvious cases of persons like newborns. Again, I want to hear your argument for why the unborn aren't persons, but simply asserting that women are more valuable isn't enough. "And seriously, how much 'naturally ordered ability to think and act morally' does your 18 month old have?" You misquoted me. I said, "I believe that all humans, because of the kind of thing they are, are naturally ordered toward developing the ability to think and act morally, and that is what matters." The way you quoted me changes what we're talking about from an intrinsic ability to an immediate ability. It's worse than a strawman. It's literally quoting me as if I'm saying the OPPOSITE of what I'm saying. I believe all humans, including fetuses, because of the kind of thing they are, are naturally ordered towards developing the ability to think and act morally, thus they have the intrinsic ability as soon as they are their own organism.
Because, sir, you do NOT have "a right to life." Only the right not to be unjustly killed. I'd like to know why YOU think a fetus possesses a right you don't have, to wit, the right to take what you need to live from the body of another? Nobody has that right. Not you, not me, and not my born children. And before they were born, they had no such "right" either. That's the crux of the issue. Answer the following question: My body belongs to________. a) You. b) The state. c) The church. d) Anyone and everyone who "needs it." e) Me. Answer, using yourself, and you will have your answer.
I actually agree with your first sentence. When I say "right to life" I basically mean "the right to not be unjustly killed." So we're on the same page there. My body belongs to me, but that doesn't give me the right to directly kill people with my body. I don't think a mother is intrinsically obligated to carry her child up until birth. I know that sounds weird, but stay with me. If we could Star Trek beam the baby into an artificial womb that it could survive in, I'm fine with that. The problem is that the only alternative to her carrying her child until birth is intentionally destroying her child. Given our current technology, she has to carry the child but it's because of the alternatives. She cannot kill the unborn child. She cannot kill a born child who wants her kidney, though she can deny the kidney. She can unplug from the violinist, she may not take a machete to him. I notice that you haven't responded to any of my arguments regarding human equality.
That's too damn bad. She doesn't need to use her body to sustain fetal life, or any life. And neither do you. Abortion is more on point with unplugging the violinist. He will die. But he never had the right to use her body to sustain his life to begin with. That requires continuing consent. I haven't addressed human equality, because it's irrelevant. We all EQUALLY have no right to level a claim to the body of another. How's that?
And this is where we disagree. I think the biggest disanalogy between Thomson's violinist story and at least most abortion methods is the difference between letting someone die of a kidney illness and directly killing another human being that you were responsible for creating.
I hope you don't mind if I ask a clarification question here - do you believe that direct killing of the fetus via abortion = unplugging and asserting bodily autonomy?
A little late to the party here, but I felt compelled to post. Only one problem here that derails the whole argument. The author and his brother implicitly acknowledge that there ARE circumstances where killing abortion practitioners are not only necessary, but morally justified (which is an inevitable conclusion given the language we use to describe abortion). They even lay out the circumstances necessary (a despotic nation, a state of war, when all alternatives have failed). Here's the problem. Right wing politicians and demagogues are stating exactly that. That Obama is a terrorist or a muslim extremist, that at the end of his term he's going to usurp control of the government, that he's a manchurian candidate in league with muslim radicals...The language the Pro Life movement uses the language of war and implied despotism (holocaust, state sanctioned mass murder, etc.) You've got politicians, TV personalities, and Pastors stating that this is 'The End Times,' that we must take action now, that the great battle between good and evil is at hand. So on the one hand you have a movement implying that drastic action is only acceptable in specific circumstances, and on the other you have TV personalities, religious leaders, and politicians all using language and imagery designed to stoke the imaginations of this specific audience into believing that those very circumstances are at hand.
Necessary does not mean sufficient. Necessary conditions: a despotic nation, a state of war, when all alternatives have failed. Sufficient conditions: [none stated] Definitely insufficient: Some street preacher with a cardboard sign saying the world is about to end, or a talk radio host calling the U.S. president a Muslim terrorist.
You are ignoring the disproportionate influence media has on the perception of reality. If you aren't even going to factor that in, I can't take your comment seriously.
Not really. Plenty of media personalities have called Donald Trump a fascist, compared him to Adolf Hitler and Lord Voldemort, and falsely claimed that ISIS is using his speeches to recruit terrorists. George W. Bush's critics regularly called him a Nazi and said that his administration was behind the 9/11 attacks. Idiots that equate the anti-abortion movement with the Taliban are awarded with airtime. You still don't get "let's start killing people!" out of that. I can't take your comment seriously. Ironic. I'm not the one blaming a lunatic's violent actions on a peaceful social movement.
Yeah. Even if all that garbage were true, that comparison is still a big slap in the face to victims of actual terrorist movements. You should be ashamed.
I'm open-minded. I know some prolifers would like nothing more than to execute abortion practitioners and drive them into the ground. However, there are others who work peacefully to change laws. Most grassroots at least, and I think some of the leaders too, seek to save life rather than terrorise people. You and I belong in the latter category, and I'm proud to say Josh does as well :)
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2386771601 I said let's suppose that the CMP had misrepresented Planned Parenthood as having broken laws, and asked: "You have said that violence was (or would have been, if Dear in fact became violent for that reason) a completely unreasonable response to PP's being denounced as criminal. So apparently you would argue that even having falsely branded PP as criminal (when it was not) would not make the CMP culpable -- because even if PP is criminal, violence would be a completely unreasonable response. Have I understood you correctly?" Two weeks later, this occurs to me: I think that a person has some culpability even for an unreasonable response to what they said, if what they said was a lie that increased the chance (however small the chance might be) of the response that took place. Probably the laws of some countries would agree with this.
"Hands up Don't Shoot" was a lie. I still don't blame think it's fair to blame Black Lives Matter activists for the few sympathizers that kill police officers, torch cars, and burn down retirement homes.
That WP article says: Another witness . . . heard a man. . . . The man was saying something to the effect of, “The police shot my friend and his hands were up.” The witness said that “quickly became the narrative on the street, and . . . people used it both as an excuse to riot and to create a ‘block party’ atmosphere.” What does "it" refer to? Did people find an excuse to riot because of the mere existence of the narrative, or because they sincerely believed the narrative? Anyway, though the article doesn't mention Black Lives Matter itself, I don't think that Black Lives Matter itself was on the scene at that moment in Ferguson. The article also says, it is important for us to note that the initial “Hands up, don’t shoot” chant after Brown’s shooting has evolved into a message that is no longer connected solely to the Ferguson event. A series of other fatal shootings by police occurred following Brown’s death, and the “Hands up, don’t shoot” came to symbolize the need to hold law enforcement accountable If the use of the slogan cannot reasonably be expected to dupe anyone into believing that Brown actually had his hands up, then I don't think those who use the slogan are responsible for what anyone hearing it does. But if it may well dupe people, and if those who use it know that Brown didn't likely have his hands up, and if someone is motivated by being so duped to do something violent, then clearly those who used the slogan helped cause the violence -- maybe they only helped slightly, but they helped -- and did so knowing they were lying. I think the lying makes them partially responsible. Whether we use the word "blame" would depend on whether we think that the violence was definitely a bad thing in the greater scheme of things, and think that that bad was not offset by some greater good that would justify it.
I appreciate your sharing, IHB :) "I suspect the anti-abortion agenda of the PLM is a ruse for a hidden covert patriarchy objective ... as suggested by their refusal to reallocate their focus and resources on birth-control during Realities 1, addressing the risks females experience during Realities 2, and addressing the sober harsh realities non-wealthy females and children do and would experience in Realities 3." Agreed and disagreed. I agree in the way that the PL movement is generally run by abstinence-only, conservative-minded Christian people. I find their sex ethics generally shocking, to be frank. Also, what you say makes sense in this way: making all children be born into a world that will not value their existence once they are born is not a good thing. I simply don't think the solution to this is abortion. What I do believe is that the solution lies at least partially in addressing the issues you stated, and I quote: "1. Pre-Conception-Realities - Poverty/Other ISMs 2. Pregnancy Risk Realities - Female Autonomy 3. Post-Birth-Realities - Poverty/Other ISMs" To be honest, I doubt that some of the PL leaders even care for unborn persons. Their incremental laws disgust me for two reasons: they treat unborn persons as political pawns rather than persons in need of protection under the law, and they treat pregnant persons as political pawns rather than thinking, feeling people. Furthermore, the views of some of the RW individuals running things behind the scenes, such as theonomy, make me shudder. I might be a strict PLer but I can empathise with the emotional insecurity a woman feels when she has no way of controlling her reproductive output on her own terms. I have felt the sick, cold feeling in the pit of my stomach, in my daydreams, as I have imagined what being a married woman with no recourse to prevent pregnancy via contraception must be like. To top it all off with fear of pregnancy and childbirth - ugh. So I despise these politicians and leaders because they make matters worse. I disagree in the sense that the PL movement is focused primarily on saving unborn persons, and that is a good focus to have. I do not think that focus should be shifted away from unborn persons, yet I believe that unborn persons should not be the only focus they have, as abortion is a banaid issue covering up a host of other issues - poverty, etc - as you mentioned. Keeping it focused only on illegalising unborn persons yields only one result - illegalisation - and not only addresses nothing in reality but can also be abused so that pregnant persons receive the short side of the stick. The fact that PLers haven't really thought through the implications of abuse of pregnant persons is highly troubling to me. Such laws might eliminate the taking of life legally (which is a good thing) but they won't answer the issues that cause women to get abortions, and this is wrong to me. I like to ask my fellow prolifers sometimes, if they are so keen to eliminate this morally unacceptable practice, why would you not want to understand the hows, whys, and wherefores of the action, and once you have the understanding, to eliminate the reasons for abortion so that women will not have the incentive to have abortions anymore. I will write up more later. Again, I deeply appreciate your contributions!
I have not come across any data filtered/sorted by racial group other than breaking Catholic responses down to White/Hispanic and Protestant into White/Black. I think Pew broke down the opinions of people who pray daily about abortion by race but, if I remember correctly, there were only 5 racial categories.
Well, I was surprised because it was so unexpected! I appreciate your love for me. Please know I love you and your partner as well. I hope that I have made it clear that I care about all people, not just unborn persons; that I care very much about post-birth guarantees for making the world a better place; and that I do not like the idea of ensuring unborn persons are born then left to die because society did not do its job by caring for them, ensuring they had a reasonable standard of living and educating them.
My debate with LB is not about her position, per se. It is that I don't see her arguments supporting that position as sound. They mainly consist of her personal opinion she provides little in the way of credible evidence to support that opinion. When factual evidence; e.g., statistics or semantics, to the contrary is presented, rather than address it, she builds a straw man. However, she doesn't do any better with her straw man because she presents no credible evidence for that argument either. Regarding Roe v Wade, I have stated, on many occasions that I do not believe it will ever be overturned, and pro-life people are wasting their time trying to do so. I try to stay on top of surveys and statistical information concerning people's opinions on abortion. Most polls indicate the vast number of people do not favor overturning Roe v Wade in its entirety. They (Pew and Gallop) also, indicate the majority do not support the extreme positions of either; opposition to abortions regardless of any circumstances, and support for abortions under any/all circumstances. Most people end up somewhere in the middle. I think the available data is clear about two things. The first is that most people have moral reservations about abortion. They and believe there must be some sort of justification or rationale for such an action. The second is that most people do not believe abortions should simply be illegal. I found some data from a poll commissioned by the National Right to Life Committee that had a greater degree of detail than most. It also assured I couldn't be accused of a pro-abortion bias. [http(colon)//www(dot)nationalrighttolifenews(dot)org/news/2013/04/new-poll-shows-pro-life-majority-on-abortion/#.VlAsbv9dFy0 I drew the following conclusions: This poll showed only 11% are in favor of banning all abortions. The number who think it should be legal in all circumstance is almost the same at 12%. So, that correlates well with other poll data I've presented, so it appears to be very reasonable to say both represent extreme minority positions. Only 30% see the stage of fetal development of the fetus as an exclusive criteria. 20% see three months (much like Roe v Wade's trimester plan) as a cut-off point for abortions for any reason. Only 10% support viability (six months) as the cut-off point. More people (over 42%) see other circumstances as a criteria for allowing abortion. Only 14% see the life of the mother as the sole criteria for allowing, those who include rape and incest represent another 14%. The study asked one question about all three circumstances together which was 28% and then asked exclusively about the life of the mother. I need to take a break, but I will be happy to take up the rest of your comments soon.
"1. Re-allocate its labor and millions (resources) to reducing systemic and institutional poverty, acknowledging overpopulation, developing procreative abilities outside the female womb, and proactively promoting and providing free or affordable access to all birth-control ... excluding setting up their own abortions providers beyond those that already exist." I believe in partial reallocation of the funds rather than complete, and that is where we will have a difference. However I believe we agree on these other measures you mentioned - "reducing systematic and institutional poverty, acknowledging overpopulation, developing procreative abilities outside the female womb, and proactively promoting and providing free or affordable access to all birth-control".
To be honest, I'm a wee bit surprised. I thought you said this was your last comment on PL topics, at least on this forum. "This sounds like you're suggesting the medical staff (or mother) LIE about needing the abortion." No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply saying that in some cases, the doctor made a mistake and deemed it "life-of-the-mother" when that baby could have been saved. At the same time, I recognise that, for the present, the life that can be saved should be saved. Which sometimes means saving the mother even if that involves an abortion. I do, however, hope for a day that will employ technology to save both*. "Also, I'm stunned that you would focus on society mobilizing and allocating resources to make sure that fetus is born (regardless of what you consider the "female incubators" wishes) into what real world conditions ... that the same society does not currently mobilize and allocate resources to guarantee a middle class or wealthy class LIFE." I hope I can assure you that I *do not want to see a society that keeps people alive because they're not born yet, but does not care for them and simply leaves them in the slums to die after they're born; in my book that is as anti the prolife ethic as taking their lives before they are born. If I have given the impression that I care only for saving unborn persons to the exclusion of all else, I am sincerely saddened, because that is not what I want at all. "You want society to find a way via criminalizing abortion, inventing technology, and mobilizing and allocating resources to GUARANTEE THAT BIRTH ... but remain silent about ANY POST-BIRTH GUARANTEES." Well, actually, did I mention that there would have to be a lot to change in the post-birth world as well? If not, I should have. No, I'm not solely for replacement of abortion via high techs, nor solely for protecting unborn persons via legal means, although that is something I'm not ashamed of. I appreciate the fact you pointed this out, because, if this was going to work, a number of things would have to change or at least improve, as follows:
1) Adoption would need to be reformed. The adoption system, at the present time, is in a terrible mess. People who shouldn't be allowed to adopt children are, and that concerns me. 2) Social safety nets would have to be strengthened rather than taken away from women, because if women are going to keep their babies, then they will need help and support in that. 3) Contraceptives would have to be improved, strengthened, multiplied and freely available. 4) Sex education would also have to be freely available. But it would have to be a type that did not shame people for not fitting into cultural norms. 5) Altering our attitudes towards sex and pregnancy would have to be a must*. We would have to be far more accepting of solo motherhood than we are now. Also, women could no longer be seen as criminals for having sex whilst in possession of a uteri. Furthermore, no woman should have to ever, ever be afraid when she gets pregnant. She would need the security of knowing she can apply for nonjudgmental help, and that she would be aided, and the path to being a parent or adopting out would be made simple for her, rather than hard as it is now. 6) Combating the actual causes of abortion would be imperative also. If unborn persons have a right to life, so do born persons. As I mentioned, we would have to deal with poverty, domestic violence, rape culture, rape and incest, etc. Also we would have to channel our greatest services for free education, free healthcare, free help of all types, etc, into poor neighbourhoods, so that young people could have a chance to grow up without living in slums. Any woman who wants to escape an abusive relationship would have to know she could get a hotline. Also any woman who got pregnant would have to go to a healthcare center and have her options explained to her, without judgment. Last but not least we would have to believe rape victims and victims of incest rather than the perpetrators. While I have my opinions I recognise that abortion is not just a moral issue by itself, but a bandaid on a host of other issues. Therefore, simply guaranteeing birth without guaranteeing born citizens are looked after is absurd and wrong because the bandaid would only be changed, not disregarded. In other words, if we dealt with the issues that caused abortion, we would be reducing abortions nearly half-way at least and that would be a good thing. You are correct in saying that if birth was to be guaranteed we would have to change post-birth conditions as well in order to ensure our future generations had a better world to grow up in. I hope I have made myself clear that I don't hold to the adage "If you're pre-birth, you're fine; if you're pre-school, you can go to hell as far as I'm concerned." "Wow ... all pregnancies must be born no matter what reality going on with the "female incubators" and "post-birth" ..." In regards to that, I mentioned the technology that would ensure that unborn persons got to live yet pregnant persons got to decide whether they wanted to carry or not, because I am not for women being made to carry a pregnancy if they don't wish to. I simply part ways with the legal abortion advocate crowd on the issue of abortion being the best method to achieve this bodily freedom. "Heck, the GOP opposes our government allocating food stamps to already born poor and low-income struggling human beings whom need to eat, plus a whole scope of other life sustaining and empowering resources." You know what? I *agree with you on this! I am very much for food stamps and other such social services going to poor people, and I have no problem paying my taxes to ensure that these people get fed. "Our species doesn't even know what such a concept or reality looks like ... all human life and quality of life guaranteed." That is a world I would like to see a reality, as I explained above. "I'm sorry, but I have to opine ... the PLM is so misguided in how it mobilizes and allocates its labor hours and millions of dollars in resources ... all of which could be focused 100% on guaranteeing a quality life for already alive human beings outside the womb ... and yes, even those unborn fetus they demand be born by "female incubators" worldwide." I agree. They need to care for everyone. The problem is that they are run by this capitalist mindset that makes poor people into automatic criminals. As for me, I want my resources to help everyone - unborn and born alike. Not just one group of people, everyone. I hope we understand each other a little better now.
Hi IHB I deeply appreciate that you explained what you believe about the movement itself without attacking those who adhere to PL belief. It was a very thorough and thought-provoking critique, IMO. I don’t really have too much to say in response except that it is an area worth seriously researching and self-examining, more than I have. If you’re wrong, I will let you know. But if you’re right, I’ll let you know that too. I don’t represent or belong to the PL movement but am rather an outlier, because it is run, at least in part, by conservative Christian people who believe in old-fashioned abstinence ideals that don’t help matters any. In my heart, I left it a while back (I was never officially part of it) because I questioned some of their legislative methods and could see their laws generally (not always, but generally) weren’t helping. I’m still PL in my heart and I’m open to listening to both sides (prolife and advocate for legal abortion) of the topic so I can learn more about how to treat this sensitive issue. I have a lot to say about how I believe abortions can be reduced, and I want to talk about it more one day if you’re comfortable with that, but I will leave my thoughts for the present at this as I wish to focus on where we do share common ground: we agree that the causes of abortion – poverty, rape culture, domestic violence, etc – should be dealt with or at least seriously reduced, plus both of us believe contraception should be promoted far and wide. IMO science and reason are the best way to handle this controversy in society, not bombs and death threats of abortion practitioners. I am not a moderator here. However, I care about the fellow commenters not being banned or deleted, and deeply value their contributions, which is why I will send them comments letting them know if and when they’re stepping over a line. The reason I told you about people versus actions was that I did not want the mods censoring your comments. Although I have no problem resuming discussion of this topic with you if you change your mind, I respect the fact you have no desire to discuss this for the present as I understand that discussing abortion is not for everyone. However, you have made me so happy for such a brief period of time that I strongly desire to talk about topics we do agree on when we both feel comfortable doing so, if that is all right with you. Would you mind if we move our conversation over to Love Joy Feminism where we can keep discussing that rape culture article that you commented on yesterday, because it would mean so much to me if you could do that for me and also because I find you to have a very insightful perspective on many topics. Also if you want to drop by on The Friendly Atheist (which is not prolife BTW) I will be happy to talk when I see you :)
No apology required. I think it fair to state that I apologise for misunderstanding your intentions. It seemed to me, at the time, that the comment about jihad was completely unrelated to the issue at hand, namely, anti-abortion terrorism. I appreciate your explaining your intentions as to why you made that particular comment; now I understand a little better where you are coming from and this is very helpful in that it puts your comments in context. "I thought the unspoken issue raised in the PLM article was whether people identifying with the politics of PLM should be viewed as potential Domestic Terrorist? This ISSUE speaks to all people whom identify with the politics of other groups and whether they too can be defined as potential DTs." AFAIK you were correct to judge that that was the topic the article was discussing. This is the intention of the article, and I quote: "Many pro-choice people have responded to the recent shooting by blaming pro-life advocates. In this article I show why such claims are completely unjustified by analyzing culpability and what it means to incite violence." "In other words C ... this article is a political polemic ... not legal analysis ... about whether a Mass Murder whom identifies with and articulates PLM politics is a Domestic Terrorist." No, it isn't a legal analysis. But it's not about whether a mass murderer who identifies with and articulates PLM politics is a domestic terrorist either. I'm pretty sure the author of this article would recognise him as a domestic terrorist or a murderer at the very least. It's an article written by a prolifer who recognises that anti-abortion terrorism is a problem, and is seeking to explain why most prolifers are not responsible for one man's actions. Yet it's also explaining how a person could incite violence through their words so that they can avoid falling into that trap when they honestly critique the abortion issue. "In other words, if we "compartmentalized" our analysis (online and offline) ... don't conduct "comparative analysis" of politically motivated murders ... then we fail to identify and deconstruct the common patterns of "hate" and "dogma" all potential DTs share ... whether it's specifically PL mass-murders, School mass-murders, Jihadist mass-murders, Gang mass-murders, etc ... notwithstanding our federal government has official definitions of domestic terrorism." Since seeking to analyse the commonalities between different types of mass murderers seemed to be your intentions when you commented and called the PL movement a terrorist organisation, I actually appreciate the critique because I think it is good to hear a dissenting voice. "The same polemic could be written by any political group ... including DAESH ... regarding any person identifying with and articulating their politks." I can agree with that because it's true. "But if you don't see these common patterns comparatively between all these mass-murders, then I'll respect the articles' online compartmentalization ... although offline that's not how reality works." Well, would you mind explaining the common patterns comparatively between the mass-murders of PL and jihad, because I have no problem having that conversation with you at all. "I can 100% guarantee you "compartmentalization" isn't how our NSA, CIA, FBI, and ATF intelligence analysts view these mass murders. To the contrary they're looking for "common patterns" of "ideological and political dogma"." Oh, okay. Fair enough. Let's see here: there is surely a difference between criticising an ideology and hating people who believe that ideology, yes? Please remember that when you critique, because the prolifers I know are good people who would never want to terrorise any abortion practitioner. Yet I admit that there are some who wish to employ these kinds of tactics on abortion practitioners and it is not helpful. I am open to hearing evidence on either side either for or against the idea that the PL movement generally supports terrorism, although, so far as I know, it doesn't. So if you have genuine evidence and can prove it I will at least look at it. In other words, seeking to accuse prolife people, out the gate, of holding terrorist notions or ideas won't help, and the moderators will not appreciate condemnation of people*. However, a thoughtful analysis of why you believe the PL *movement supports domestic terrorism would contribute greatly to the content of this forum as that is very much part of the subject that the moderators want everyone to discuss, AFAIK. Last but not least you were far more on-topic than I realised so thanks for clearing up the confusion. I have no problem resuming this conversation if you are so inclined. So thanks for your contributions!
I can understand your frustration, but I think we're getting a little off-topic here. If this article was covering Islam I'd discuss that with you. However it's not.
You can count the number of people sympathetic to the pro-life cause that have actually killed people for ideological reasons on your fingers. Most (if not all) of them are just like Robert Dear - mentally unstable loners with criminal backgrounds living in sheds or off the grid. To date, no pro-life activist has ever flown an airplane into a building, strapped a bomb to his face, thrown acid on a woman's face for going to school, beheaded a journalist, or opened fire on an office because of a cartoon. There aren't tens of millions of pro-life advocates applauding such behaviour. There are no organized anti-abortion terrorist groups on social media promising young people 72 virgins if they leave their families to overthrow the government and destroy monuments. You don't see a huge fraction of the pro-life population that believes in killing their daughters for dishonouring their families (by changing religion, or by refusing to cover their hair/forehead/face/full body). Unless you can say the same about jihadists, stop insulting victims of radical Islam by suggesting the two are even remotely similar.
Although I am open to hearing both sides of the issue on anti-abortion terrorism, I do believe the vast majority of grassroots prolifers and a few of the leaders deplore violence against those who do not share their views. So I appreciate your critique.
I think we agree on the conclusion, but the "try again" you added here is fairly snarky, or at least doesn't tend to lead to productive dialogue between people who disagree. Please refrain from jabs like that on this forum. Thanks.
What you say seems to me to be intuitively true. However, if you say that to someone who doesn't feel the same way, I don't think just the fact that you believe it will impress or influence them very much, if at all. That seems to be the case here. Is there an actual reasonable argument you can make to support that statement or is it just a dogmatic, religious (or quasi-religious) assertion?
The only pregnancy you can protect is the one in your own uterus. There is no such neutral zone, known as "da woooomb" where "unborns" just hang out getting bigger without having negative effects on the health of real persons. No they are not persons. However, women are.
Those sources are using LMP instead of post-fertilization age. Post-fertilization age is around 21 days. Source: http://www.drplace.com/Evaluation_of_fetal_arrhythmias.16.20197.htm FYI: Don't feel bad. Common pro-life confusion, and a lot of sources are vague about which they're using. Most sources use LMP.
And there would be no beating heart without the beating heart of the mother, regardless of when it starts to beat. Cardiac cells will beat in a petri dish with electrical stimulation. If there are a group of them, they beat in unison, because that's what they do. No one is obligated to preserve beating cardiac cells, regardless of location.
Do you believe that an embryo is a group of beating cardiac cells then? I'm not trying to be dumb here, just wondering exactly what you do believe about the composition of the ZEF.
Until it's able to live outside someone else's body? Pretty much. I think differently about viable fetuses. They're still not entitled to a uterus, but if there's a threat to the mother's health, they can be delivered. In fact, it's a delivery after 20 weeks, even if the fetus won't make it. Which brings up another misconception about "abortion." "The day before delivery", "the month before delivery", "8 1/2 months" or any other false situations anyone might lay out, abortion is not EVEN possible. At that point, it's a delivery, even of a dead fetus. NOT an abortion.
Well, thank you for sharing what you believe. I can understand where you're coming from a little better now. Personally if a baby is dead and would be stillborn in the natural, I am not against the abortion procedure being used at that point.
That is not "an abortion procedure" at all. It's a delivery 100% of the time, regardless of the life-status of the fetus. You must realize that a fetus over a certain size cannot be suctioned out with a cannula, removed in pieces in a D&E, nor can it be teleported to outside the uterus. Thus delivery is the only option.
This is 100% correct. A late-term abortion is a 2-3 day procedure because of the necessity of dilating the cervix with laminaria. This is why one of the arguments many pro-choice organizations used against the ban on D&X abortions (commonly referred as "partial-birth abortions") that the ban would put women's lives at risk was so deceptive. If a woman's life is at risk late in pregnancy, a partial-birth abortion would never be done. An emergency C-section (like the one that was used to birth my youngest son Eli, whose umbilical cord had wrapped around his neck) can be done in 10-20 minutes.
I was wondering what happened to you. Did you reply to my comments and I missed it, or did you choose to not reply. If you chose not to reply, can I assume you agree with what I said? I proved my claim by providing a source from a medical journal. Since you currently claiming that the termination of a pregnancy by medical or surgical means after a certain stage of the pregnancy is considered a delivery rather than an abortion, could you please do likewise and provide a similar type of medical source supporting that claim?
Before I address my previous comment, I would ask if you are going to address this one? Regarding the medical source I provided supporting my claim, it was in response to: "Wrong. And NO "the majority of doctors" do NOT go with "conception. I'M not even sure ANY of them do. ." The actual data showed that twice as many doctors go with conception as implantation. That was part of a reply I made to you 2 days ago. Here it is in its entirety. "An incarcerated person loses freedom of movement, which is a type of autonomy. He doesn't lose bodily autonomy. In particular, a female convict is not forced to carry a pregnancy." You are simple playing word games. But, that's fine lets look at it semantically: i.e., based on the meanings of the words: Autonomy is simply an individual’s capacity for self-determination or self-governance. Bodily simply means of or concerning the body. Bodily autonomy is therefore simply an individual's ability (synonym for capacity) to determination or govern their own body. You admit that "An incarcerated person loses freedom of movement, which is a type of autonomy." So I would ask they lose the freedom of movement of what? The only logical response is their body, of course. So, based on semantics; i.e., the meanings of the words involved, it is simply incorrect to say he doesn't lose bodily autonomy. Conceptually, bodily autonomy is not limited to the reproductive aspect of the body. So, the fact that "a female convict is not forced to carry a pregnancy" may be true, it does nothing to negate the fact that controlling a convicts freedom of movement also results in a loss of their bodily autonomy. "Wrong. And NO "the majority of doctors" do NOT go with "conception. I'M not even sure ANY of them do. ." You need to read something other than whatever propaganda you have been reading and be better informed, and less dogmatic, with your assertions. Implantation is not the consensus of the OB GYN's in the country and repeating negatives and using caps does not change that. In fact, implantation is the minority view. A study of "Obstetrician-gynecologists' beliefs about when pregnancy begins" was published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology -- February 2012, Volume 206, Issue 2, Pages 132.e1–132.e7. it stated: One-half of US obstetrician-gynecologists (57%) believe pregnancy begins at conception. Fewer (28%) believe it begins at implantation, and 16% are not sure. "This is simply NO. Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope. Rights are not subjected to the whims of others. That would be mob rule. We DO have a Constitution, you know. The rights of everyone are protected from tyranny of the majority. More repetition and caps. I have pretty well lost hope in a civil intelligent conversation with you, at this point, I'm glad this is almost over. Your original comment was: "People are free to believe as they wish, but that has zero impact on the rights of another." How do you think rights are determined? For example you mentioned the constitution. Were the men who wrote the constitution not people who believed what they wished to believe, defied a king, and had a huge impact on the rights of a whole lot of "anothers". The rights of everyone are protected from tyranny of the majority as a direct result of their beliefs. Have you ever read the Federalist Papers. It was a series of papers arguing for the ratification of the United States Constitution. No. 10 is an essay written by James Madison under the pseudonym Publius (under which all of The Federalist Papers were published), Federalist No. 10 is among the most highly regarded of all American political writings. It addresses the question of how to guard against "factions", or groups of citizens, with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community. Madison argued that a strong, united republic would be better able to guard against those dangers than would smaller republics—for instance, the individual states. Opponents of the Constitution offered counterarguments to his position, which were substantially derived from the commentary of Montesquieu on this subject. So the fact that rights are not subjected to the whims of others and that the rights of everyone are protected from tyranny of the majority are the results of the beliefs of people like Madison which had and do still have considerable impact.
What is "pregnancy?" It is the state of females while they are carrying an embryo or a fetus. Now with all due respect for those OBs who think otherwise, at fertilization a female isn't "carrying" anything. There is a free-floating ball of cells that have a far better chance of ending up passing harmlessly out of her body than attaching to her and starting to grow. I would also ask these "doctors" if they consider petri dishes to be "pregnant" since there are embryos in them. Pregnancy is a dance involving two, not merely the presence of an embryo that at this point is doing nothing but floating in space. Therefore, I stick by what I was taught in nursing school. As far as the federalist papers? Those are not law. They can tell us something about what the founding fathers were thinking when they drafted the Constitution, and I agree that the notion of protecting minority rights from the tyranny of the majority originated there. The time of the founding fathers has come and gone, and the Constitution must be interpreted according to life in 2015, not in the late 18th century when it was written. Otherwise, it just isn't worth much. For example, they thought only white male landowners should vote. In today's society, such an idea would be laughed out of court. Today we have the 14th amendment that clarifies everything. No state or federal government may deny any person equal protection under the law, and defines exactly who is a citizen. Anyone born inside the United States or naturalized therein. No federalist papers are needed to clarify that. Therefore, the rights of a minority cannot be subjected to the whims of voters. Now as to bodily autonomy. What type of autonomy is denied to prisoners? The autonomy that you and I enjoy to be located wherever we wish to be. They cannot leave. That is NOT the same as loss of bodily autonomy. A prisoner cannot be drugged or treated medically against his will. He cannot be strapped down and forced to donate blood. He cannot be raped without it being a crime. He cannot be forced to eat. He cannot be forced into medical experimentation. He cannot be forcibly sterilized. And in the case of a female prisoner, she cannot be forced either to abort a pregnancy, nor to carry one to term. THAT is BODILY autonomy. Loss of bodily autonomy is not defined as the loss of freedom of movement. That would more accurately be called a loss of liberty than bodily autonomy. It's not a semantics game. Words mean what they mean. And even then, prisoners are not deprived of ALL liberty. They cannot, for instance, be forbidden to marry... even on death row.
First of all, does your silence mean you are not going to provide a medical source supporting that claim that "the termination of a pregnancy by medical or surgical means after a certain stage of the pregnancy is considered a delivery rather than an abortion"? Next, I would point out that your comment that I originally addressed was: "Wrong. And NO "the majority of doctors" do NOT go with "conception. I'M not even sure ANY of them do. ." That was factually incorrect and your lack of research was blatantly apparent. So rather than admit that you were wrong you build a straw man argument instead. But, in doing so, you don't effectively knock your straw man argument down either. You offer no evidence from a credible source and instead present only your own opinions based on you remember from nursing school. You believe that should overrule the opinions of doctors who specialize and currently practice in that field If you think about it, isn't the development of pregnancy actually counted from the first day of the woman’s last normal menstrual period (LMP), even though the development of the fetus does not begin until conception, which is about two weeks later, which assumes each menstrual cycle to be her body is preparing for pregnancy.? Aren't you really just saying pregnancy begins at implantation simply because you prefer that definition because it better serves your argument? I have used that argument too, because I understand how effective IUDs are at preventing pregnancies and thus reduce abortions. But, I was wrong. It is not the consensus of doctors who practice in that field. The next comment I addressed was: "People are free to believe as they wish, but that has zero impact on the rights of another." That is conceptually about the relationship between beliefs and rights and I addressed it on that basis. The Federalist papers were an example of the selling of a set of beliefs having an impact on the rights of others, in case it was Madison addressing the rights of the individual, which is the issue the raised. I could have used many other examples to illustrate beliefs that found themselves incorporated into the legal system that has a great impact on rights. You completely miss the point by attacking the examples rather than the concept itself. Next you say: "Now as to bodily autonomy. What type of autonomy is denied to prisoners? The autonomy that you and I enjoy to be located wherever we wish to be. They cannot leave. That is NOT the same as loss of bodily autonomy." Semantics is the study of words and their meanings. I have clearer defined the words "bodily" and "autonomy" using standard reference material for the English language and showed how when combined they can mean precisely that. Your comment: "That is NOT the same as loss of bodily autonomy." is simply incorrect based upon semantics. The use of improper capitalization for emphasis doesn't change that and only accentuates the fact it is purely your opinion.
A medical source? How about any medical dictionary? My knowledge is primary. I was taught in nursing school that abortion is the termination of pregnancy prior to viability. Since then they have tightened up the standards a bit, but it still amounts to the same thing. Are you not aware that ALL pregnancies terminate? Whether they terminate in birth (delivery) or abortion is a matter of stage. But since you evidently have a problem with this, tell me how YOU would term them?
"Whether they terminate in birth (delivery) or abortion is a matter of stage." Apparently, not: Abortion - elective or therapeutic Alternative names Therapeutic abortion; Elective abortion Definition Elective or therapeutic abortion is the deliberate termination of a pregnancy. http(colon)//medical-dictionary-search-engines(dot)com/encyclopedia/?encyclopedia_name_url=48&level=2 I would call it an abortion if it meets that criteria; i.e., it is intentional. Do you have no reply to my other comments?
Under that logic, you are calling my daughter's labor induction "an abortion." Screw you. It was intentional. It was also a delivery. Abortion (medically) applies to the* premature* termination of pregnancy by natural or induced means, and has no relationship to the life status of the fetus. An abortion, natural or induced, will always result in fetal death, because the fetus is unviable. A delivery will usually, but not always, result in a living child.
It's not my logic, nor did I write that definition. I merely said I would define abortion in accord with it. Your response was completely inappropriate. You apparently couldn't argue factually, so instead, you (I suspect) feign personal hurt and outrage. You then "shoot the messenger". At least you have dropped the pretense of objectivity and civility.
Admit it. You made it up. It didn't come from a medical dictionary. "The intentional termination of pregnancy" is NOT the medical definition of abortion. I tend to get angry with people who lie to my face. I have told you what I was taught in nursing school about what abortion means, and I have told you what the specific medical definition is. ALL pregnancies "terminate" and a great many of them are intentional, and are not abortions. And you can also lump my two C-sections, and my sister's three C-sections in with your screwball definition of abortion as well. All were intentional. All terminated a pregnancy. NONE were abortions.
More kill the messenger responses from you and now the all out, murderous rage denoted by the dreaded ALL CAPS. I am almost to scared to respond. Can you read? I provided even provided a link. Did I make up a website too, just to prove I was right? If "The intentional termination of pregnancy" is NOT the medical definition of abortion, please provide a link to a medical dictionary that proves otherwise and I would be happy to acquiesce on this. It seems to take a lot less get you angry than people who lie to your face, just disagreeing with you seems a quite effective way to do it as well. I not terribly impressed by what you were taught in nursing school. My wife attended a nursing school attached to the Mayo clinic. One of her teachers taught that a women could not get pregnant the first time she had sex. The quality and accuracy of the information is very depended on the person teaching it. Not all teachers are of the same caliber.
"I don't care what you were taught in nursing school. My wife was taught a women couldn't get pregnant the first time she had sex at a nursing school attached to the Mayo clinic." No, she was not taught that. They don't teach "old wive's tales" in nursing school. And you didn't supply any link. You went to http://web.md, not a medical dictionary.
I'll tell her you called her a liar. I doubt she lose much sleep over it. I simply see that as typical of your responses. I believe http://Web.md does provide sources. Besides, you made the assertion initially and you still haven't provided any evidence, except your typical "because I said so!!". However, I have found your continuing nasty and condescending (though consistently wrong) motivational. Consequentially, its worth the effort to find and present evidence, for no other reason than to embarrass you. Here's how the Merc Manuals describe abortion: "Induced abortion is the intentional ending of a pregnancy by surgery or drugs." https(colon)//www(dot)merckmanuals(dot)com/home/women's-health-issues/family-planning/abortion
Wow, that's awesome! Night :) I wish your partner well, if that's all right. Because she sounds like a very smart woman from what you tell me :) PS: Thanks for calling me a co-leader! Because one mark of a man of character is to recognise women as co-leaders :)
"please don't let anyone (especially males ... lol) tell you otherwise" As I battle misogyny in my soul and in my body and in my environment, I will remember your words - guaranteed!
"And now you know 100% why I was 100% correct about how sharp you are and a superb LEADER ... it's not a binary males vs females or vice versa ... it's humans loving humans:)" God, I agree 100%! Personally, as I've stated before, I find men to be magnificent, strong, bright, brave leaders IF they are doing what is right and good and treating others with respect as well. Men have the inherent capacity to do so much good and to be so incredibly intelligent, but they have to earn respect through character and are not entitled to it simply because they are men*. If a man is good and trustworthy, stern yet gentle, wise yet open-minded, etc, I will trust and respect that man. But he has to prove himself to be good first, before I can even consider pledging my trust so completely. Please don't ever underestimate your intelligence and leadership skills, nor talk yourself down to put others up either, just because you happen to be a man. To me, what is needed is not only to value the leadership of your own sex but also to value the leadership of the opposite sex - I mark a note that this is a great failing in society, that everyone brags about how great their sex is while putting the opposite sex down, or praises the opposite sex while downplaying the positive contributions of their own. This statement is not a criticism of either of us but rather an affirmation that our society seriously needs to change in this area, and, as we agreed so capitally, that men and women need to lead *together rather than fighting each other all the time. As a leader, then, plus as a supporter, I support your decision to get off this forum and do what you must do. Many cheers go with you for the wonderful day you gave me, and I hope I made you happy too!
I thank you, yet again. I am deeply touched by your opening your heart to me like this! I cannot help but respond back with respect, appreciation, and love. I'm sorry I was a little mad at you at the very beginning, but I'm glad I restrained myself and tried to understand where you were coming from, and no I didn't hate you either even then, and certainly don't now! Thank you so very much for encouraging me to be a leader; and to think of myself as that; and for noticing, remarking on, and praising those qualities. I have never really been told I have the capacity to be a leader (except for once or at the most twice), only the capacity to be LED, partially because of my nature and partially because I am, in the eyes of others, a sweet young woman. I will try not to underestimate myself!
Thank you so much for talking and listening to me. I'm aware we didn't exactly like each other at first but once we got past the initial animosity we hit it off just fine, like I suspected, and a part of me wonders if you thought the same. I have to go too; I've got RL (real life) to live. I appreciate the fact you want to check out those places and I hope to see you again soon so we can discuss loads of topics more - feminism, PL, racism, etc. You have taught me a great deal today. I hope we can respectfully find common ground where we can, and disagree with compassion when we must. You've made me think a lot of noble thoughts about my sex and appreciate good men who support women all the more. If ever I get the right man I want someone who highly appreciates female leadership so thank you for bringing that to my attention. I agree with and feel deeply inspired by your desire to see women lead. I also think that men are intelligent and strong, and make brilliant leaders as well; that doesn't mean I'm seeking to willfully misunderstand your beliefs about women's intelligence and leadership qualities; quite the contrary. I was raised traditional so I appreciate these good qualities in males, and there's a reason men and women should lead together - they need each other. I will check out your link. Time for bed for me too, sorry :*(
That's because you're genuine and respectful. I knew we'd have a lot in common once we got past the rough stage :) I don't feel threatened at all, nor do I sense you are flirting with me. You are talking to me like a person and that's great! BTW, I couldn't flirt to save my life. Do you mind if I gently encourage you to stop being a procrastinator? It is a hurtful habit, I know from sad experience :(
I thank you. Honestly, I never thought of myself as a leader! In real life I am rather meek and compliant I'm afraid. But I know there's a tiger inside waiting to be unleashed if she's given the opportunity :) I do not know how I managed to win you over like that. Can you tell me how I did it, if you wouldn't mind? I persisted because I like people, and I think of what we can agree on far more than on what we disagree on. Finding common ground, especially on such a tough issue as abortion or anything else equally as controversial, is important to me because at that point we're viewing each other as enemies and we need to forget that we disagree and see each other's humanity. Please, make Love Joy Feminism a new home if you feel comfortable with that. Also, check out Friendly Atheist. I post there a lot sometimes and I would love to run into you again because you are a very sharp, bright, intelligent man yourself. Yes, men are right on the ball! A female leader has to recognise that rather than pandering to the idea that men are dumb and women are smart, because that's nonsense.
I don't do cyber space or anything, just comment on a few articles. I'm not into social media either, certainly no FB or Twitter. Of course it is flesh-and-blood human beings. Why the spontaneous responses from so many Disqus owners? You should have read his comments. I felt threatened, like I mentioned. I knew he couldn't touch me because of the computer screens, but I also knew he was a real person and his intentions towards me were less than honourable. You have to be very careful what you put up on the Internet, no kidding!
No offence, hahahaha! I love a good laugh - just as long as I get the gist of what I'm laughing about :) Aww, you're really laying it on thick; that's so sweet, thank you!
I value, respect, and love you too, first and foremost as a person. Also, as someone who has taught me a lot, and I deeply appreciate our conversations and the insight you have brought into them :) I don't think the agreement we have is perfunctory now, but rather sincere.
Hey, I'm aware you're not trying to brown-nose me, LOL. You were - and still are - pretty frank with me about where we disagree, I think. No brown-nosing there!
I believe in your integrity. I know you're not being disrespectful or sexually harassing me. I have experienced that once online and it was not fun believe me. BTW: thank you :)
I hope you don't mind if I copy your comment to the article on rape itself. Your thoughts are that good. I will respond to this comment at that article commenting section as well.
I am female, and proud to be a woman :) I do not believe in being dishonest about my identity, despite my desire for privacy. I'm not sure where I said you were Marxist, but thanks for clarifying. "as you'll learn about the Italian scholar whom created the term and analytical framework" Please tell me more. Who is this person? "I'll do to the other article (website) ... what's your aka name there?" It's Crystal there as well. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/12/the-word-is-rape.html When I respond to your off-topic comments I will take my responses there and let you know I have done so. Thank you for agreeing to shift the conversation. I do not want your good thoughts deleted just because they weren't on-par with the theme of this blog.
"I also have issues with whites defining, interpreting, and dictating the realities of non-whites ... not to be misconstrued with all human beings having input (voice) into the complexities of our species as "human beings" ." Can you please explain the difference between the two, as I'm a little mystified. I've never really heard of the word "hegemony" before speaking with you, so I would say you taught me something new. http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hegemony "Hegemony is political or cultural dominance or authority over others. The hegemony of the popular kids over the other students means that they determine what is and is not cool." Based on that definition, I can see totally what you mean - if indeed you are working by that definition. In other words, are you saying that people's choices, how they view themselves, and how they act, are influenced by the cultural and political hegemony around them? PS: I hope you don't mind if I ask you to take this discussion to at least one of those web pages I mentioned, because we are getting off-topic and I want to respect the moderator's rules while enjoying our chat. If you're agreeable, we can take it to that article on nonconsensual sex you enjoyed so much.
"I don't loathe or hate religion or spiritual folks. I just loathe when it becomes a rationale for killing or murdering or oppressing people:)" You're right; I should have taken note of that. I am spiritual but not religious myself. I have read that article about Doug Wilson in the past. On seeing it referenced, I can identify with why you're agnostic and critical of white hegemony. I read portions of his Southern Slavery as it Was with disgust. The man obviously has serious problems with critical thinking skills as it relates to morality :(
Of course they will be! And don't fear, our discussions will generally be very earth-centered and worldly, LOL. I hate Biblical Patriarchy and all it stands for with a passion. Unfortunately it is off-topic so I cannot expound but I feel that cult has helped to ruin any credibility conservatives might have had with liberals. They are a crazy lot. I especially loathe Doug Wilson.
I'm a Westerner. I have never been raped or abused by incest. However, I have read and have had the privilege of knowing people who have been raped, so their pain resonates with me. Also I am tokophobic, meaning I struggle with fearing pain and downsides in childbirth. I have also struggled with mental illness, meaning I am unprepared to have children. I'm definitely not trying to speak from a place of privilege. The only reason I believe abortion is wrong is that it takes an innocent human life. That's it. If it didn't do that I wouldn't be dead set against it.
Cool. If you ever want to discuss feminism or Biblical Patriarchy with me, that will be the place to find me. I deeply enjoy Love Joy Feminism and The Friendly Atheist.
Thanks for expressing your opinion on the article. I can understand your discomfort. I recognise that you want to be respectful to my sex by not bossing our bodies around and, while I disagree with your position on the abortion issue, I can appreciate the actual thought of wanting to respect female decisions. "I won't lie, the symbolize 50s looking white female with her baby image didn't resonate with me, for all kinds of cultural reasons ... including why "WHITE" still the default "universality" for "human representation" I share your deploring of white being the default state. I am white myself, yet in a way racism bothers me a lot more than sexism. White is not necessarily delightsome, the Book of Mormon be screwed. We need more non-white representations of models, protagonists in stories, etc. The white privilege - I find it bothersome.
No it isn't. It's a website dealing with a variety of topics. The mainstream commenters would generally share your views on the issue of abortion more than mine, although that's not the only thing discussed.
Your behaviour is almost no better, I'm sorry to say. While I would not approach the issue the way he does, I appreciate the fact he told it like it is.
Exactly so. As you yourself said, no right matters once your right to live is gone. I have tried and tried explaining this repeatedly but sometimes with little success. Do you think it is accusing advocates of legal abortion of ethnic cleansing to assert such a thing? Because I don't. To me, it's just stating a moral principle. Ironically I would consider myself a progressive person (in some ways). Yet I can see this sort of act runs afoul of all progressive values. We fight against ageism, for disability rights, yet we include abortion, euthanasia. Something's gotta give somewhere.
There are a few pro-life Democrats, but they're a tiny minority within an overwhelmingly pro-abortion party that treats taxpayer funded abortion on demand for any reason throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy as the highest sacrament in the progressive/liberal religion. That's right, I said religion.
"There are a few pro-life Democrats, but they're a tiny minority within an overwhelmingly pro-abortion party..." That statement seems ideological rather than factual: According to Gallup, in 2012, following are the percentage, in descending order, of people who identify as pro life in each party: Republicans - 72% Independent - 47% Democrats - 34% The percentage of US adults who identified as pro-life was 50% http(colon)//www(dot)gallup(dot)com/poll/154838/pro-choice-americans-record-low(dot)aspx To put that 34% in perspective -- 70% of the US population is Christian, Evangelicals are 25% of the US population, that means Evangelicals are 36% of all Christians in the US. Would you consider Evangelicals a tiny minority of Christians?
Even if the poll you cite is accurate as to the percentage of supposedly pro-life Democrats, only a tiny minority of Democrats who hold elective office are pro-life. Again, unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand is the highest sacrament in liberal/progressive theology.
"Even if the poll you cite is accurate as to the percentage of supposedly pro-life Democrats, only a tiny minority of Democrats who hold elective office are pro-life." What you said was: "There are a few pro-life Democrats, but they're a tiny minority within an overwhelmingly pro-abortion party..." I provided data, to show that was not true. I do not intend to play move the goalposts with you. If you do, please do likewise, and provide some data to support your contention. "Again, unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand is the highest sacrament in liberal/progressive theology." Again, purely ideological, in no way factual, and totally unimpressive intellectually. The fact that you repeat it just makes you look even less impressive. However, I did find some factual information about liberal and progressive theology. I have provided it below. However, no where does it mention "unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand" as a sacrament, much less their highest one: Liberal theology, covers diverse philosophically and biblically informed religious movements and ideas within Christianity from the late 18th century onward. Liberal does not refer to Progressive Christianity or to a political philosophy but to the philosophical and religious thought that developed as a consequence of the Enlightenment. Progressive theology was much harder tp pin down, but I eventually found something from a Methodist church in the Midwest. In their promotion materials about who they are, they claim progressive theology as one of their unique identifiers. Below is a direct quote from their materials: 8 Points of Progressive Theology: by calling ourselves progressive we mean we are Christians who... find more grace in the search for understanding than we do in dogmatic certainty--more value in questioning than absolutes form ourselves into communities dedicated to equipping another for the work we feel called to do; striving for justice among all people, protecting and restoring the integrity of all God's creation, and bringing hope to those Jesus called the least of brothers and sisters invite all people to participate in our community and worship life without insisting that they become like us in order to be acceptable recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God's realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us. have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus. understand the sharing of bread and wine in the name of Jesus's name to be a representation of an ancient version of God's feast for all peoples know that the way we behave toward one another is the fullest expression of what we believe recognize that being followers of Jesus is costly, and entails selfless love, conscientious resistance to evil, and renunciation of privilege
No, liberal/progressive theology was your term. I merely explained that the terms you were using actually had meanings that were nothing like what you characterize them as. I don't "believe" in theology at all. However, I do find it interesting from an academic/intellectual standpoint and have read a considerable amount about it. Why would you assume that the fact that I know something about a subject makes a statement regarding my relationship to it? For example, you likely understand the digestive system. Can I assume that makes you a turd?
It was meant to be a humorous analogy, not an insult. I like the fact that mudslinging is discouraged, but not hypersensitivity that would consider something like that mudslinging and/or offensive. However, I appreciate your concern.
Thanks for understanding and explaining why you said it. I think your contributions are good so I do not want to see you get banned or have your comments deleted. You sound like a real thinker.
Jim wouldn't be banned for that, because he wasn't slinging mud. He was making an analogy. It perhaps could have been made a little clearly and more effectively, but his intent is obvious.
How do you know that? If Jim H is Marxist won't he call himself that? From what I read of him, he hasn't made a decision on life issues either way but rather is very open-minded on the topic.
Nothing! My circumstances, at present, unfortunately do NOT permit me to get a Disqus registration or I would happily do so. It's a privacy measure. Also, I am not a troll. I realise a few people have abused the guest commenting facility but I would rather give thoughtful, rational reasons for what I believe than troll people.
"Wrong. Abortion stops a beating heart. An unborn baby. Try again." The above prior comment of mine was removed. Josh Brahm and his blog are pathetic. Last you'll be hearing from me on this thread.
I am in agreement with you that that comment should NOT have been removed, because it's the confounded truth, and we can't deny it to pander to sad feelies.
Why do you call it a religion? To me, it's more like a philosophical affiliation. There are different types - Marxists, SJWs (social justice warriors), more questioning liberals, etc.
This is why I call them "unborn persons"; so that we don't fight over the terminology yet I am strongly acknowledging their personhood. I created the term myself, off "pregnant persons." That aside, I agree with your comment. Abortion does stop a beating heart and that is why I am so dead set against it. I doubt anything will change my mind on the issue.
I've appreciated this conversation so much; it would be an honour for me to bring you to this website where we can talk some more if that's okay with you: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ You sound as if you'd get on well with the people there :)
I will answer your thoughts in detail later. You've won my respect because you care for us, the women. Thank you :) When I say, embrace my femininity, that means that I will appreciate myself in every way possible including my biological processes. Never mind the offence that causes. I think you will enjoy the Suffragette movie coming out then. I appreciate reading about the struggles women faced just to vote.
I'm not religious. Being prolife, for me, has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with standing for life-preserving morality. Also, I mentioned that I have no wish to suppress anyone. That being said, I am seeking a solution to this problem before us that will grant both pregnant persons their right to bodily autonomy and unborn persons their right to live, via technology and many other methods. I seek to care for and consider both because both are equally important, and it's time prolifers recognised that. That being said, my ideas of caring for both pregnant and unborn persons will not please everyone, and I recognise that as well. I appreciate your contributions to this forum and I have found you to be respectful and considerate. Thank you. However, as a woman I appreciate men and their intelligence a lot too. I think men and women need to rule together, not one over the other.
"UNTIL procreation takes place outside the female body" - do you think technology will ever make it possible for the procreated person to be moved to another location, after it was created inside the female body, to finish development before birth, without killing it? I do agree that women need to step up to the plate and take charge of their lives though. The only difference between you and me is that I don't believe that abortion is the best way to make that happen. Also the only difference between me and the mainstream PL movement is that I don't believe traditional views on female sexuality or even the status of unborn persons are the best way to make that happen either.
"1. If that "toddler" was a "zygote" ... NO, that decision will always be hers:)" I can understand that. I wonder though - didn't we start from a small beginning? Also, if the zygote has less worth than the toddler due to developmental differences, would the toddler have less worth than a teen due to such differences? Also, in regards to bodily autonomy - which type do you believe in, and I quote: "The Right to Refuse Argument states that even if the unborn is a human being, a woman has the right to refuse to allow the unborn the use of her body." "The Sovereign Zone Argument states that even if the unborn is a human being, a woman should still be able to have an abortion because she has the right to do anything she wants with anything inside the sovereign zone of her body." http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/autumn-in-the-sovereign-zone-why-its-my-body-i-can-do-what-i-want-wont-do/ 2. At least you are consistent with your view. You are correct to observe that humans generally don't step out of line to save the lives of others unless they feel up to the challenge. The Hunger Games illustrates that quite well. 3. What's a DSM 5 medical condition? PS: "cuz I love you ... cyber wise ..." Thanks for the compliment, returned, cyberwise :)
I've read feminist theory enough to sympathise with your views. We are definitely a special breed. I saved your comment for future reference. As I mentioned, my primary focus is foetal rights and not punishing women for sex, hence the mention of high techs. I don't choose to be viewed as an incubator. I'm not one. What I do choose is to seek out a solution that will genuinely reduce abortions while allowing women their right to live as they see fit. I do appreciate your concern for our sex, and I have noticed the obsequious deference to male judgment myself. Which is why I'm trying to reclaim my femininity back, so these guys can't dominate me.
Thank you for explaining your reasons. "but rarely on the technology to procreate outside the female body ... and rarely on the systemic and institutional conditions that make it unfathomable to bring a child into this world ... poverty, war, disease, bigotry." On this, we agree. I do have a question though: if you saw a woman trying to drown her toddler due to depression and anxiety on her part, would you step in to stop the drowning taking place, or not?
Well, we finally found something to come half-way on, and that's good. I'm not sure poverty will ever be completely eradicated but it helps to reduce it, yes? Also I advocate for contraceptives, sex education, and social safety nets. I am sorry that the mainstream PL movement hasn't made preserving bodily autonomy and unborn human life together its primary focus.
"If a majority or minority of women decide ALL FEMALES MUST PROCREATE or be defined as evil, immoral, criminals, murders, etc ... or raise their kids in poverty, crime, eventual prison or death ... then let that be the political-decision of ALL FEMALES ... never EVER male patriarchs:)" Agreed 100%, because conservative Christian men who preach abstinence aren't helping IMO. One question to ask though - do you personally believe it is your prerogative to step in when you see something unjust being perpetrated, even if that injustice does not personally affect you?
With respect, you've made a few mistakes. First off, I am not American. Second, I believe in the core doctrine of prolife, which is protecting human life from the moment of conception to natural death. However, I agree that the mainstream PL movement is doing more harm than good with its incremental laws. What I would like to see happen is superior technological alternatives that will allow unborn persons to live while granting women bodily autonomy, because I have talked extensively to abortion advocates and agree with the principle of respecting the bodily autonomy of both unborn and pregnant persons. BTW, prolife to me means protecting ALL life of humans and animals, not just unborn human life. Which is why I appreciate the work that Black Lives Matter does.
Thanks for responding back. "Bringing a child or children into poverty conditions is cruel!" I agree that it is cruel. Which is why I advocate for fighting poverty, one of the root causes of abortion. May I ask what led you to advocate for abortion to remain legal?
May I please remind you of the commenting policy: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2/ Please read it before proceeding here. Josh's rules are so strict that even a few of your friends failed to pass muster.
Of course not. I simply don't want to see you get banned. I was making friends with PJ4 and Infadelicious and BOOM! They're gone. It was quite a shock to me, and I don't want the same happening to you.
Frankly, after hearing the comments from fellow pro-lifers, including the ones you mentioned, it does not matter to me either way. Thank you for your concern Crystal. Have a great week. -:)
Have a great week too, Wild_Bird. I deeply appreciate your barrage at me when you misunderstood my position because you clearly and concisely stated my views so well. I hope you don't mind if I borrow it, LOL. Also please let PJ, Infadelicious, and all the other banned folks and the ones that won't comment for fear of banning know that I appreciated their company, conversation, and contributions, and if they want to see me again they can write in at Secular Pro-Life Perspectives.
Thank you for your comment Crystal. PJ4 and Infadelicious are great. I hold them both in high regard. This post will serve as a message to PJ4 and Infa that Crystal holds them in high regard and that you would be happy if they re-connect with you at Secular Pro-Life Perspectives. Kind regards, Wild_Bird
Yes, but can they see it? Please pass the comment on to them via LAN if possible. This is also a message to Jed, Paul, Javelina Harker, etc. I appreciated them so much, LOL. And thank you!
"Yes, but can they see it? Please pass the comment on to them via LAN if possible. This is also a message to Jed, Paul, Javelina Harker, etc. I appreciated them so much, LOL. And thank you!" I do not have any of their email addresses. My reply to your post on Disqus will have to suffice. Note you are free to register on Disqus and follow anyone you wish also. I cannot even see your dashboard.
"You Pro Life are Domestic Terrorist and should be viewed and dealt with like such!" How do you know that for sure? Also, may I point your attention to the comment policy please: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2 I am sure that you have a lot to contribute provided you read the commenting policy and observe it properly.
"That's what abortions do ... solve the problem of UNWANTED pregnancies . . ." If a woman does not want the "problem" of an unwanted pregnancy, then she should take responsibility BEFOREHAND. If she fails to do that, the unborn baby's inalienable right to life should be protected. Once the baby's most fundamental human right has been protected and the baby has been born, the mother is free to put that child up for adoption. Interestingly, your most fundamental human right, the right to be born, was respected yet you would callously deny that same right to others. Have you no shame?
I mean this respectfully - sometimes it is necessary. However if you're wanting to discuss the matter civilly and hopefully persuade people to your views then it's not the best course.
You may want to say a more nuanced version of this. There are obviously cases where killing human life is not wrong, like self-defense. I think you mean something like, "abortion kills a valuable person without good justification."
I could call your movement pro-abort (because I would have good reason to do so), but I won't. Also, I'm very sad that we can't talk about the things we have in common. I saw you were a multicultural, third-wave, feminist, African-American man, and I thought that was so nice, because I deeply appreciate multicultural, third-wave philosophy. I'd like to talk to you about these things and to understand why you advocate for abortion to remain legal, but I'm not sure I can if you're going to take digs at me the way you did.
I am sorry you feel that way about us. I can assure you we are not terrorists. I would respectfully ask you not to call us pro-death because it is extremely offensive. If I'm not allowed to say "pro-abort" despite having very good reasons for using the term, then it would be a good thing for advocates for legal abortion to reciprocate the favour, if you understand what I mean. That put aside, I think we share a lot in common and you would be an interesting person to talk to.
It is one thing to be kind no matter what someone says. We are talking killing here! There is NOTHING wrong with righteous indignation toward defenders of slaughtering the innocent! Jesus made that perfectly clear. Being kind is nice to a point. But shaving that point to much and you end up with nothing and the evidence is obvious..the baby loses because of that mans NONSENSE! Being articulate is great on paper!
This is becoming a fairly common response from pro-lifers to me and other pro-life advocates like me that try to have positive interactions with pro-choice people. This post might help you understand that we're not telling people to be "too nice:" http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/dont-be-too-nice/
Okay, James, this is how I see it. I try very hard NOT to be nice to the action of abortion (I struggle in this area because of fear of humanity, more than anything). I consider it morally reprehensible and and have gotten into serious trouble for expressing such a sentiment and similar ones to it on more than one occasion. However the people need to be reached, and I'm not going to be able to reach them if I start insulting them and using pejorative terms. I'd rather get someone to really think, and reconsider their position by being respectful than put them off by name-calling. I'm very much for calling a spade a spade, and I understand there is a balance at the same time. You have every right to your anger, James. You are right, babies are dying. However taking out your anger on the action and the causes of the action rather than ridiculing and name-calling the people is the best way to handle this, IMHO. Please read the comment policy before continuing to comment here as I appreciate your input here and don't want to see you get moderated: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
I deleted a lot of comments from you were you calling people names. It would take me too long to find whatever deleted comment you're referring to right now. I think I was being gracious by not banning you for how much name-calling you did. Now I'm going through hundreds of new comments from the last 48 hours, and moderating that.
I don't know what that deleted comment said. Another person, one of whose comments you deleted, is an online friend of mine. I don't know what that comment said either. But overall I'm clear that your moderation efforts have made this site a better space for dialogue. Thanks for doing the extra work that was required this time.
Honey I'm not buying the crap your selling. Save it for Salon. Those asshats may take you up your bullshite but not here. Now scat! You are an tremendous waste of space and time.
Please remember the comment policy before proceeding: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2 Oh, and this blog is a safe space, for prolifers who want to hear themselves think and advocates for legal abortion who want to explore prolife ideas.
My friend Josh Brahm will be HIGHLY offended when he sees your comment. If you dislike the comment policy, take it up with him. I'm just trying to enforce the rules: Oh, and here's a relevant section for you to mull over carefully before proceeding further with any comments here: "5. I reserve the right to delete your comments. This is my blog. I don’t have an obligation to publish your comments. The First Amendment gives you the right to express your opinions on your blog, not mine. Specifically, I will delete your comments if you post something that is, in my sole opinion, (a) snarky; (b) off-topic; (c) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing, threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate my sense of decorum and civility or any law, including intellectual property laws; or (d) “spam,” i.e., an attempt to advertise, solicit, or otherwise promote goods and services. You may, however, post a link to your site or your most recent blog post." PS: I don't take drugs. I'm a teetotaler.
You began this conversation not me. I don't care who you are friends with, your threats are of no concern. There is no need to reply, your long winded comments "trigger me". I'm gonna look for a safe space, hooefully government provided.
I didn't threaten you. I simply pointed out that the moderators have strict rules on this blog, and also pointed out that your comments about safe spaces were triggering to survivors of traumatic events. I have no plans to quarrel with you so will leave you to your own devices.
But I went back and viewed the discussion you were responding to. I have to say the whole thing was pretty much off the wall You were the voice of reason.
So your claim here is that the baby comes out in a painless puff of smoke, and that you don't want to force women to remain pregnant against their will?
If I was not a vegetarian at heart, of course not, because the steak would be dead. Unborn persons are living. Ann, I believe I should remind you of the commenting policy; please read it: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
Then you're good with clamping off an artery leading to the uterus, right? Let me guess, dead fetuses are too specialty-special to dismember. Certainly they are too special to do medical research on, such as is often done on other dead bodies, because a dead fetus is so much more important and special than a live infant. Especially since that would get around your real purpose of making the woman suffer as much as possible by removing it in small pieces, rather than one large one. How about this - I will make you eat a grapefruit. You will prove how easy it is to get a large object through a small hole by letting me stuff it intact, down your throat. If you prefer it be cut up, then you will have proven that you are a forced birth liar.
So, what you are saying here, is that if some pervert is sodomizing a 'pwecious baybee', I should either stand around wringing my hands or go whine about it on the internet, rather than use 'force and violence'. There is no right to someone else's body. Or any property belonging to someone else. If you have managed to get a hold of or occupy something belonging to someone else, it will be removed, or you will be removed. Even if it is necessary to use 'force and violence'. Even if it costs you your 'very life'. Even if you are really cute and even if spoiled teenage girls are really sad.
There is no right to someone else's body. If you truly belive this, then why would you spend large sums money attempting to create a baby, to impregnate yourself... Why do you believe you have a right to a baby's body?
"If you truly belive this, then why would you spend large sums money attempting to create a baby, to impregnate yourself..." I certainly wouldn't spend any amount of money trying to create a baby, and knowing Ann Morgan, she wouldn't either. That being said, adults who wish to procreate have every right to do so. The right to procreate is in no way, shape or form a "right to someone else's body." It's the human right of adults to create a family (or not), and you have no right to interfere in that in any way.
That is a fair answer, IMO. The only way this moral dilemma can be solved in our society is through love. If it's true what you say about hate and abortion, then prolifers who hate people who disagree with them are no better off.
To him, yes. But please don't stop responding to me, Bucksergeant, as I'm sure you have some valuable insights to offer. For instance, did you get my question about the idea of abortion being murder being responsible for the massacre that occurred recently? I think that idea is faulty; what do you think?
Back at you. Wherever you roam. I don't care about affiliation or party or stance, only how I am treated and interacted with. You did not deserve my initial hostility, but I remain accountable for my good faith error in response. You're not my enemy. Be well.
Thank you; I work hard at being civil and factual. I can be horrifically nasty -- I view it as a personal weakness -- so I am very, very careful most of the time to remind myself there is a real person on the other end. I do slip sometimes, especially when I'm stretched thin IRL. Then I take a break. :)
With your nod, Shifty, I'm pleased to edit my comments to you to be less abrasive; you've treated me well and I'm happy to PAX. The only reason I haven't is a sense of accountability for my posts, good or bad. For the record I neither flagged nor reported you.
I understand how difficult it can be, Bucksergeant. I do not believe in people stalking others. There wasn't really anything wrong with your three-letter comment, and I know people can hurt others. You have my sympathy as well. However, I think that, due to Josh's strict rules, it would be best that you stopped responding. You're feeding him every time you write up. Besides, I appreciate your presence here and feel you have much to contribute provided you follow the commenting guidelines. I would like your opinion on something though: what do you think of the idea that prolifers are responsible for the shooting because they call abortion murder?
Shifty, I must sternly remind you: According to the comment policy, name-calling and quarrels from other websites are strictly prohibited: And I quote: "5. I reserve the right to delete your comments. This is my blog. I don’t have an obligation to publish your comments. The First Amendment gives you the right to express your opinions on your blog, not mine. Specifically, I will delete your comments if you post something that is, in my sole opinion, (a) snarky; (b) off-topic; (c) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing, threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate my sense of decorum and civility or any law, including intellectual property laws; or (d) “spam,” i.e., an attempt to advertise, solicit, or otherwise promote goods and services. You may, however, post a link to your site or your most recent blog post."
Jed, may I respectfully remind you of the comment policy please: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2 Name-calling and off-topic quarrels are not allowed here, only constructive criticism of abortion and life issues.
Certainly have been, left and right, to EVERYONE including Shifty. Please read it before continuing your commenting here. I appreciate your contributions very much but they need to follow the rules. So tell me - do you think prolifers are responsible for the shooting because they called abortion murder, or not? And if not, why not?
I don't thinks it works that way. If you wish to find someone responsible, you need to establish a theory of cause linking the speech to the act as an inseparable link in the chain of events leading to the act. You would need to try to falsify it, to remove the speech and test to see if the act happened anyway. Asking someone to state "why not" is asking them to prove why your supposition is false. It would be up to you to show its truth.
I see. The term "informed" has multiple meanings. It could mean that your opinions or beliefs are informed by others and It seems that is not the sense you meant. A less archaic way of relating it might be to say that you were told. Informed is too easily confused with instruction by authority to me. But then again, I go all archaic from time to time :-)
Well, if someone told you that speaking what one believes is true is a cause for violence through incitement and therefore confers blame, I would wonder how any truth could be offered without us all being mass murderers. I would say the person making that indictment was practicing deceitful argument by hiding behind the false concern for those who might have violence incited upon them. It's a nifty way to avoid the reality of the idea, make it a taboo subject.
Oh, absolutely! In other words, "BE SILENT." I even heard one advocate for legal abortion call for the government to persecute all prolifers because of the bad actions of some. I find such rhetoric distressing.
I find it self-serving. I have found little conviction in the positions of "Pro-choicers". It seems more like an issue of convenience to push a flawed ideology to me. A political wedge to divide opponents into discrete clumps so they are less pesky. An elite solution to an unsolvable problem. All it does is justify elites.
Although I have found both positives and negatives in legal abortion advocate philosophy, I agree with you. Positives:
1) a strong love for bodily autonomy 2) a deep respect for women's choices and possibly a few other traits. I state this for many reasons, not the least of which is that bodily autonomy and consent arguments can be used to fight forced sterilisation and forced euthanasia, which is good. For all these, their arguments, no matter how brilliant, cannot justify the wrong that is done every time an innocent human life is snuffed out of the world. They are academic, philosophical attempts to justify the unjustifiable. I'm a simple person, with a simple knowledge that "abortion stops a beating heart" and that is all I need to know.
"So tell me - do you think prolifers are responsible for the shooting because they called abortion murder, or not? And if not, why not?" No. Why is it rational to think they would be? Did "prolifers" incite or encourage such an action? Did they they act as accessories before the fact in any way? Are they responsible for Dear's mental illness? I think not to all of the above.
I've been informed that even stating that abortion is murder incites violence and hate. While I understand where they are coming from in the sense that abortion is not murder in the legal sense, it is murder in the moral sense. I am cautious about the language but care a lot about not compromising the truth of what abortion is.
You've been informed? It would be nice to know the source of your information. If it was not murder in the legal sense, wouldn't you be obliged to explain why it would be murder in a moral sense? You state it as a given that it is and I was wondering about the basis for that.
When I say, informed, I don't mean informed in the intellectual sense. I mean in the opinion sense. I've read the opinions of many advocates for legal abortion, which strongly tend towards this view. I didn't mean to state anything as a given. "If it was not murder in the legal sense, wouldn't you be obliged to explain why it would be murder in a moral sense?" Depending on the situation, yes I would. "You state it as a given that it is and I was wondering about the basis for that." I state as a given that it is ... what? I ask because I'm confused as to what you're saying.
"While I understand where they are coming from in the sense that abortion is not murder in the legal sense, it is murder in the moral sense." You state that it is your understanding that "it" (your it) is murder in a moral sense. You have presented it as a given with no reasoning supplied for your belief. To me is is irrelevant whether abortion is murder in a legal sense or a moral sense. It can be murder. All killing isn't murder. All abortions are killing. Are some murder? In my opinion, a great many of them are, in both senses. Whether the law reflects that does not change the fact. But a lot of the confusion here on both of our parts is the shift from talking about whether Speech describing murder is responsible for another's actions. Did you edit your post? The first time I saw it it had the "it" in it in place of the word abortion. I interpreted that to mean the speech, not abortion. If I misread, my error.
Sorry for the confusion. I have to say I disagree with Josh, hopefully in a respectful way. The whole idea that killing is murder because it is illegal is backwards to me. It is illegal because it is murder. But laws are imperfect things being the art of lawmakers. A law in error that makes a killing a murder when it is not or one that makes a killing justified when it is not, does not change the character of the act. The label doesn't change the ingredients and sometimes can be misapplied. An erroneous label legally sheltering a murder does not make it less of a murder. If the law was changed tomorrow making the killing of people over 6' tall was passed, does that make the killing yesterday of someone 6'2" to not be murder? Is legality retro-active absolution? No, in my mind, it is illegal because it is murder and not that it is murder because it is illegal.
At least one definition of murder is "unlawful killing". Some forms of killing are not unlawful and those who kill in those situations are not subject to being charged with murder.
Fair answer. Although it is wise to remember legal issues when dealing with advocates for legal abortion. Good contribution. Thanks for stretching my mind, Paul!
I noticed:-) You are going to be challenged if you run into Jed or me. Play's on words, double meanings, puns...And heaven help you if you meet up with Javelina... Ha.
I mean there are times when she makes me blush. A very straight-forward lady, one might even say earthy. A dear friend of mine none the less. I am old and therefore old school. There are some topics and descriptions that just scramble my programming.
A Candor. "Politeness is just deception in pretty packaging" - Christina from Divergent From what I know, old-fashioned people are less likely to discuss embarrassing topics, yes?
Speaking to your last sentence: it is a matter of style, and is best tempered by time, place and company. And to your quote:
Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untraveled, the naïve, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as "empty," "meaningless," or "dishonest," and scorn to use them. No matter how "pure" their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best. ~ Robert Heinlein
Oooh, okay :) Divergent is a teen dystopia. Used correctly, it can show up the flaws in the thinking that only certain groups of people are valuable for life.
You've given me something good to think about so I think I'll remember it. I will continue to seek to be wise when speaking to advocates for legal abortion but you are right, abortion is murder because it kills unjustly.
Many many times this is true. I am not an absolutist, I wouldn't say that all cases are so regardless of the particulars. I would also say that there might be mitigating circumstances that might apply to the woman but for the life of me I cannot understand why that should be extended to corporate third parties licensed to kill on nothing more than the permission of the woman. That one just mystifies me. Just because it is done by doctors, doesn't mean it is medical care. Can a doctor avoid repercussions for running someone over with a car by claiming it is a medical procedure? Why is abortion any different? It is the callous inhumanity of the sophistic rationalization that appalls me most. This is a practice of a civilized society? I could see how circumstance or indoctrination might make a woman make a bad choice. I don't see how that could possibly excuse the practitioners who commit it.
Crystal, I neither know nor care to know who "informed" you of that, but they are mistaken. Individual responsibility can never be reasonably transferred to others.
I know. I was viciously attacked for it once. I could show you where it happened. I was informed I was scum for what I believed, basically. It was hurtful. That's one reason I came to Josh - to get help. You're right, Jed. They are mistaken. Although I believe we need to be careful with our words, I don't believe in compromise on the point either. "Individual responsibility can never be reasonably transferred to others." What do you mean?
"The Devil made me do it" is the oldest excuse in history. The contemporary notion that some group of "others" must be held accountable for one's actions is not only weak and immature, it has a decidedly Marxist flair about it, which tends to make it very popular with modern feminists and leftists. "Responsibility is a unique concept; it can only reside and inhere within a single individual. You may delegate it but it is still with you. You may share it with others but your portion is not diminished. You may disclaim it but you cannot divest yourself of it. Even if you do not recognize it or admit its presence, you cannot escape it. If the responsibility is rightfully yours, no evasion or ignorance or passing the blame can shift the burden to someone else." ~ Admiral Hyman G Rickover
So in short, these people are coming up with a weak excuse to blame the shooting on other people's words, yes? I appreciate your explanation about responsibility as well. I am liberal but not Marxist, and I'm betting you're conservative, yes?
There's a saying in the military: "The effect range of an excuse is zero meters." More people should be made aware of it. Whether the excuse is weak or not is not the point; it is still an excuse. That is to say, it is an attempt to shift the blame and deny individual responsibility. Take, for example, a "hit man" who is hired to commit a murder. That fact that someone else paid him makes him no less guilty of the crime.
That makes sense. The shooter does indeed posses individual responsibility. Are you saying that advocates for legal abortion who argue this way about speech leading to murder are seeking to shift blame?
Yes. There is such a thing as incitement of others to commit an act, but simply saying, "I believe abortion is murder" does not rise to that level. It is nothing more than the expression of an opinion, not an incitement. If, on the other hand, someone were to say, "You should go out and kill those people who provide abortions," that would be an incitement to commit an illegal (and immoral) act, and is properly against the law. Even if that was the case, it would not absolve the guilty party of the responsibility for his freely chosen actions.
That's a fair answer. I'm sick of prolifers being blamed for this. I feel so strengthened and encouraged after talking to my fellow prolifers; it means so much to me. Although I'm aware there was one guy who roused a crowd to cheers when he stated that he wanted to see abortion practitioners tried and hung by a legal court. Personally I do not believe in finding joy in death, otherwise that makes us no better than those committing the act. What say you?
I say he should have been called on it and agree with your conclusion. Personally, I've never seen any but a peaceful protest, and would decry any other.
I know, but to frame all of us for the actions of a few is really dishonest IMO. That doesn't mean I don't acknowledge that anti-abortion terrorism exists, nor that I am dishonest about its existence. What it means is that I don't engage in it myself, nor would I be friends with anyone who did.
Indeed, thank you. I'll be ignoring the venom and bitterness he throws my way Not really worried about it I'm just so used to this from them, it's like I'd be surprised if it didn't happen.
Yeah, I knew an advocate for legal abortion who acted horrible to me once. I was in tears by teatime. It was a very intense experience. She humiliated me in front of all my online friends. I could tell stories ...
Awww ... Hugs. I thought it puzzling myself. Perhaps it's a glitch in the system? You could contact Josh via email: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/contact/ If you don't like his answer, please at least write me one more comment to tell me a place I can come where guest commenting is permitted as I do not possess an account at present due to very unusual circumstances.
Shifty, the rules say that you cannot bring quarrels from other blogs onto this one. This is a place for civil discourse about the topic of abortion. I am deeply sorry for any bad treatment people receive on the Internet, however. Please know you have my sympathies.
Because love for strangers is an abstract notion, and as my fellow commenter on TFA said, when humans see something foreign and don't know how to respond to it, a common reaction is anger.
Thanks very much :) I give the credit to a fellow TFA commenter. She is the wise one. As for the mess this forum is fast becoming again, I think I should tell you that I comment for two reasons:
1) to "minister" to others 2) to argue respectfully with them All very good reasons I personally don't appreciate quarrels. I liked you from the moment I saw you :)
Aww, that's okay. It's not a homework assignment! Will be looking forwards to the answers when you can give them, LOL :) BTW this troll is just abusive. Wade through the entire convo if you have the spoons for it: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/10/07/transgender-woman-attacked-and-killed-as-baptists-advocate-curing-transgenderism-with-prayer/ I've told him what's what. I was called a vile piece of filth, etc. Yet I find it interesting he never answered my questions on life issues. Because his position isn't prolife though he claims to be a conservative Catholic. Oh, dear, I'm getting off-topic again. As for your trials I see that Tiki Torch is extremely nasty. She uses several of the same words as Sharon - pro-lout, pro-loafer. She's awful. Prolifers weak and spineless indeed, I'd have shown her a thing or two.
By all rights they should be up there. I didn't see anything wrong with them myself. Possibly the word "pusillanimous" could have cause offence; I don't know why myself. Thanks for coming back, Shifty!
How's it been going, PJ, other than with Tiki Torch? I wrote to them again via another email address. It is confirmed. Commenting with a Disqus account is not allowed :( So if you want to talk to me we'll have to talk here or at SPL, just as I mentioned.
Mostly ignoring or fending off trolls and their sock puppets I hope they don't follow me onto Josh's site :-/ Oh you could also come onto COTR I'm there a lot too But I like Josh's site He's so nice
COTR allows all Disqus registered folks to comment. That said, the reality is that, if you're not sufficiently right wing, you'll soon be banned from posting there even if you're civil in your approach
I mean that they are somewhat outspokenly "pro-life" and sharing that position with them has resulted in them cutting you some slack with regard to other issues on which you may be to their left.
I see you're having a tough time with Tiki Torch :( I'm having a tough time dealing with a nasty person at TFA who hates trans people :( Welcome to the club!
What is wrong with what I said? It's the truth. I see no policy violation. To be honest, I see this philosophically. For most of history, men have had their way with just about everything. There's just this one little thing men have never controlled. That's pregnancy and birth. For a long time, nobody cared, either. It would have been seen as unseemly for a man to even discuss "women's business" much less have any part of it. All that started to change with the advent of modern contraception. Once men realized they would no longer be in charge, and would have to share some of the power, well, some men have a tough time with accepting that. Some responded by coming down on the only area that has always been under the control of women. So now, there is objection to IUDs and birth control pills based on the off chance that a fertilized ovum might not implant. And women need a permanent scar and loss of fertility to justify saving their lives from a tubal pregnancy. It's all pretty nonsensical, and it's all pretty new. Don't get me wrong. I love my kids, and I've never had an abortion. That's more good luck than good management. I was just lucky. I was never that woman with pulmonary hypertension who was 11 weeks pregnant, and a mother of four other kids. If I had been, would I have aborted? You had better believe it. I place primary value on my own life, and the lives of the kids who are here and depending upon me. And that would be that. There can be other pregnancies.
Nothing is wrong with what you said. I wanted to let you know in advance what Josh's rules are so you don't break them, because I want you to be able to comment here without repercussions. Civil disagreement is very much welcome here, however, and I appreciate your sharing your thoughts on the topic at hand.
I deleted your comment because it was entirely off-topic. This is not a place to copy and paste diatribes about other issues. If you do that again, expect to be blocked. As our comments policy says, this isn't a free speech zone. It's not about discourse about every topic under the sun. That's not why people come to this site. They come for clear thinking about abortion and practical dialogue tips.
I deleted a lot of the exchange that was bickering about what other supposedly did at other sites. I left a lot of the exchange that strayed off topic but was still a good example of people being kind and curious about each other. Not banning you, Shifty.
I have been asked a few times by at least one advocate for legal abortion why it is I am friends with them. Let me explain. This person is operating from the point where PLs say abortion is murder. They say that if I say abortion is murder and compare it to slavery and the Holocaust, how can I be friends with them? You see, would you sit down to lunch with a nazi or a slaveholder? No? Then why would you treat an advocate for legal abortion this way? Isn't it inconsistent with what you believe to be friends with an advocate for legal abortion yet say abortion is morally reprehensible because it takes an innocent human life? What about the fact that since PLs are friends with advocates for legal abortion yet hate what they do they mustn't believe unborn persons are real people for sure, and they are doing it because it makes them feel superior and they want power over others. The worst part of their claims is that people like this shooter are the most morally consistent because they act out what they believe, that abortion is murder and then they shoot people to stop murder. How can you answer such claims????
I'm probably coming from a different perspective than your friend thinks all pro-lifers are coming from, perhaps a more nuanced perspective. I don't call abortion "murder," although I think it's killing. I don't often compare it to slavery or the Holocaust, because while there are some valid comparisons, there are often a lot of comparisons between the two that would be disanalogous. I don't think most aborting women are as culpable as SS officers were who killed Jews, because I think it was a lot more obvious to an SS officer that he was killing a person than it is for a pregnant woman who has been lied to about what is actually in her womb. I think the single most effective way to change a mind about abortion is in the context of friendship. I've written many of the reasons for this as well as several case studies here: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/category/relational-apologetics/ There's even an abortionist in Utah that wants to get together with me to discuss the issue. I would take that appointment, because it's my best shot at changing her mind. I think we've written a very thorough case in this post for why we're opposed to violence, so what's the alternative? I think loving people and having a good exchange of ideas is the answer.
"I don't think most aborting women are as culpable as SS officers were who killed Jews, because I think it was a lot more obvious to an SS officer that he was killing a person than it is for a pregnant woman who has been lied to about what is actually in her womb." Another point - when most people realise what abortion truly is, they forsake it. And I agree they are not as culpable, although they are not entirely blameless; they did have a hand in it. Also they say, there are pictures of ultrasounds and lots of pregnancy info with full-coloured photos so there is no excuse; they know fully, don't they?* I was informed on mentioning this that ignorance is no excuse, I think because would you excuse Germans who didn't know what was happening to the Jews? How do you answer such people? I do, however, hold abortion practitioners highly accountable because they possess the full knowledge of the action but they do it anyway. *I think bodily autonomy plays a huge role in this - getting rid of an unborn person despite its personhood not because it isn't a person (as you stated once).
Crystal: Could you qualify what you mean by the terms "personhood" or being a "person"? Is it automatically bestowed by virtue of having human DNA, or does it require something additional; e.g., a soul or sentience?
Thanks for answering, Josh. This question has torn at me so much. You ever seen the movie Final Solution? It deals with the topic of racism in South Africa, where a young man wanted to start a nazi movement similar to the one in Germany. You know who changed his mind? His girlfriend asking him to think through things dealing with racism. His education, making him read Cry, the Beloved Country. And most of all, a black pastor whose unconditional forgiveness broke him down when he tried to assassinate him. If those people who say this are right then they were friends with a nazi-minded individual, weren't they? They didn't believe what they said when they stated that blacks were people with rights, did they? Sometimes I wonder if I am being inconsistent when I talk about these things with people. I suppose their question is, if you really care about what you believe, that abortion takes innocent human life, why are you friends with me? Because it's a game for you and it makes you feel morally superior. That hurts so much. The thought of betraying what I think is very painful yet how can you reach people with the truth if you don't speak it in love? "I don't call abortion "murder," although I think it's killing." After that conversation with you I have tried to stay away from saying that. My friend brought up I had said that it was cold-blooded murder, and worked from that angle even after I tried to explain to her that I tried to speak in a more nuanced fashion on the topic due to your influence. I think you're fair to say that legally, it's not murder. Morally, however, it is. And we're trying to get people to see that. "I don't often compare it to slavery or the Holocaust, because while there are some valid comparisons, there are often a lot of comparisons between the two that would be disanalogous." In a way I agree with you! Because the example of abortion isn't politically close to nazism, but it's actually closer to slavery, because in both cases slavery and abortion you were/are in a democratic society where these issues could/can be changed by due process of law. Not so with nazism. Can you please explain how it would be both analogous and disanalogous to compare abortion to slavery (and if you can, nazism as well)? Please tell, I am interested, it would be so helpful :) I realise that abortion is analogous to nazism in the sense that it has that mentality of being tied up with eugenics, would I be correct in saying that? Also is there a difference between rationally pointing out similarities and differences between the two, and saying "All pro-aborts have the mindset of a nazi"? "I don't think most aborting women are as culpable as SS officers were who killed Jews, because I think it was a lot more obvious to an SS officer that he was killing a person than it is for a pregnant woman who has been lied to about what is actually in her womb." I told my friend that and she said it was irrelevant, I think because the implication was because you wouldn't be so excusing of Germans who didn't know, would you? She asked me if a German told you it was totes cool to kill a Jew "because he didn't know any better" would you be friends with him long? How about a guy beating and battering innocent little babies in his backyard, all because he "didn't know any better"? Also would you honestly spend the time with a nazi or slaveholder trying to convert him? If you wouldn't why would you spend time with people who believe in abortion? She told me she's seen racists talk and she would never be friends with one, so why would a prolifer be friends with a "pro-abort", because "I wouldn't want to be friends with a Nazi, would you"? I suppose there is a huge disconnect between calling people nazis and being friends with them; I see her point entirely on name-calling! My rational mind tells me there's something wrong with all this stuff but my emotions go very haywire on receiving those kinds of replies. For instance, we don't have nazism or slavery around today like we used to. But we do have abortion; it's our new civil rights issue. So we have to, as a friend of mine said, get people aware of the problem and turn public opinion against it. It's the best way, especially as the law isn't exactly on our side. I think what she was trying to say is that language is important. We walk a fine line between compromising our convictions by being too soft with the language (yes, there is such a thing!) and being too harsh with the language and thereby turning people away from our message. "I think the single most effective way to change a mind about abortion is in the context of friendship." I will certainly look at your links that you have provided! Also I agree with you about friendships. I am aware of how you helped sow a few seeds in the mind of one of your friends, thus encouraging her to come around. That was wonderful, though I know you didn't be friends with her to change her mind. Yet you've said, your first agenda is loving a person, yes? If that's so, would that logically apply to slaveholders and nazis, the scum of the earth, if you were living during those times? And no, I don't generally consider advocates for legal abortion (meaning my next-door neighbour, my teacher, my friend) "the scum of the earth" although there are times I absolutely hate what they believe on this issue and am horrified that anyone could hold such views. "There's even an abortionist in Utah that wants to get together with me to discuss the issue. I would take that appointment, because it's my best shot at changing her mind. I think we've written a very thorough case in this post for why we're opposed to violence, so what's the alternative? I think loving people and having a good exchange of ideas is the answer." What's the alternative? You answered it yourself. The point I think is the language. They're trying to say if you're going to call someone a nazi and compare abortion to the holocaust don't be surprised if someone acts on your words even if you're too cowardly to do it yourself, also why would you say someone has the mindset of a nazi yet be friends with them? Personally I've tried to stay away from language that would accuse people, and deal with actions and why I morally disagree. I don't think I have ever accused anyone of being a nazi or slaveholder or anything like that. I don't know why but for some reason when people see me they respect me, and I deeply appreciate that :) You're doing the right thing, Josh. I applaud your efforts. Yet can you be close friends with an abortion practitioner, or would your conscience forbid it? Also, do you believe that articles dealing with anti-abortion violence (not single shooters like this guy) as it comes to bombing abortion clinics and terrorising abortion practitioners is made-up stuff to smear the PL movement or does it occur? I ask because you seem to know a few people in the PL movement very well. Some would ask, due to the comparisons that others have given, if you could be so kind to an SS officer. But would you consider such a comparison disanalogous? How to answer these people I know not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My question is, I think, how can you answer such comparisons? What are the right words to say, that can show them you are genuine about what you believe yet you don't advocate for violence? The funny thing is, this scripture runs in my mind (I'm not a Christian but was raised as one) which says in Daniel 12:3, KJV version, "And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever." That is what you're doing with your work. That is what all of us pro-lifers are meant to do. That is what we do every time we stand up for the truth. That's why we shouldn't give up. But can such a scripture apply to those other groups of people who oppressed and killed others for gain? I want to apologise for rambling on and on and sounding like a stuck record but I'm so confused, and struggling to work it out, and I'm reaching out for help. I suppose I've spouted out a lot of nonsense but thanks for answering my questions! Also if I think of anything else I'll say, if that's okay. Thanks for allowing me to vent. I want to be rational when answering, consistent, peaceful, kind, uncompromising, loving, etc. I think if we can change one person's mind on abortion, we've done a good deed. Just as much as if we peacefully campaign against the barbaric trade of dogs and cats being eaten for meat in South Korea and China, or any other human rights injustice. I hope you will be deeply rewarded in yourself today as you continue your work of reaching people for the truth.
I'm sorry, I can't respond to this many questions right now. I can't get into all of the proper and improper analogies to slavery and the holocaust here. I imagine we will write detailed and well-researched articles on these topics in the future. The single point I made about it is sufficient (I think) to answer your friend. My friendship with a pro-choice person is not remotely analogous to being friends with someone who personally beats up babies in his back yard every day, because in the latter case it is painfully obvious to a person with a working conscience that this is wrong. I don't think abortion is nearly as obvious to many pro-choice people. I don't know if I could be close friends with an abortion practitioner. Whether we could have lots of conversations like I did with Deanna would probably depend on how open-minded he or she was. Whether we would truly be friends would probably depend on whether we both cared about each other and were seeking each others flourishing. It's complicated. An abortion practitioner may think that flourishing for her is continuing to do abortions, and I would think that flourishing is abandoning that work.
I can appreciate your dilemma, DGCJ. It's just that Josh's site is a safe space to discuss life issues and Josh doesn't like things taken off-topic. What do you personally believe about all this? Do you think that comparing the practice of abortion to slavery caused this guy to go out and shoot people, or do you think it namecalling people who had abortions, or do you think it was deeper than that? Also do you think there is a difference between condemning an action someone does and condemning the person themselves?
Excuse me, but this is entirely off-topic and could be treated as spam. Please repeat your comment somewhere else and read the commenting policy before proceeding further: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2 Josh's blog is being treated like a rugby field at the moment and I'm not appreciating it.
So do I :) What's your opinion? Do you think that saying "the act of abortion is murder and morally repugnant" has any relationship to what this shooter did, or do you think something else drove him to it? Do you think it was calling advocates for legal abortion "nazis" and "baby-killers" that pushed this guy over the edge? I'd really appreciate your opinion on this, as I don't see how calling out an action and rationally explaining the similarities between abortion and slavery could result in hatred and murder, but I can see how defamatory and highly inflammatory language against a person or a group of people might encourage such actions.
Thank you for the compliments :) That Javelina woman seems fair. It's a pity I never got to speak to her. If you could encourage her to come onto this site again I do hope for the chance of a word with her! Also Josh Brahm, Wholovesorangesoda, Guest, Acyutananda, and a few others are nice people that you can have reasonable conversations with about this topic. They won't scream at you and will disagree in love. "I guess my disconnect is that I cannot seem to grasp why you would have hated women who chose abortion." I was a very young person at the time. Since I was aware of the barbaric nature of the act, and I listened to and read what prolifers had to say on abortion and other life issues a lot, I felt horror at the thought that anyone could do something so dastardly towards an innocent child. I have never lost that horror, but that feeling of repugnance transferred into hating women who had abortions. As I was ignorant of the many desperate circumstances many women who commit such an act find themselves in, I perceived them to be cold-blooded murderers who had killed their children because they were selfish, and I believed that such people deserved very harsh treatment. However, as I continued to read and educate myself via feminist theory and pro legal abortion literature as well as prolife literature, both that and the tokophobia disorder I am recovering from helped to change my mind on hating the people having abortions, though not on the act itself, long before I began speaking to advocates for legal abortion. And talking to these people who disagreed with me on this issue cemented the view I was predisposed towards, that the prolife movement was in dire need of reform. By that time my hatred for women having abortions was long gone.
I suspect on their side there would be a bunch of whining and howling, although I would wonder why, as I thought they were concerned with precious little unborn babies.
Isn't women's rights one of the reasons such inventions are supposed to exist? Also, to save unborn people's lives. Since all life is precious from the moment of conception we should seek to protect it by whatever means possible. Here's a comment I wrote about some of the problems in the PL movement; please take a read of it and tell me what you think of it in general. Also do you believe that the PL movement would improve if such techniques were employed as suggested: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2396781480
Now, folks, with all due respect, if you want to sling mud at each other, PJ, Ann, Expect Resistance, you can't do it on this blog. Josh has very strict rules about the way this place is run and this is the kind of thing that could get everyone banned. Please read his commenting policy before continuing: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
I did. Why do you say that? I would appreciate your backing up your statements please as I am open to learning about the integrity of every single person I chat with. Also, I don't know the details but I'm aware that PJ and fiona64 have had a few run-ins (and no, I didn't ask PJ for specifics or anything). Of course if she is a compulsive liar I'm sure I'll find out eventually. However, I prefer not to take sides in online quarrels, and to believe a person innocent until proved guilty beyond a doubt. As I told another commenter, I care about every person I interact online with and prefer to speak civilly to people. So I will be kind to everyone - whether it's PJ or fiona64 or whoever else it is.
RH and LAN do indeed have some things in common. But only the former has the words "reality check" in its title despite publishing Amanda Marcotte. That holds trump as far as I'm concerned.
Hugs. I understand now. It's okay. Being abusive to one another won't help matters, I don't think. Keep thinking these things through, always. Never be afraid to ask questions and read here, all right?
At ERI they believe in treating those they disagree with with kindness. Anyone who insults on this website is warned. If they persist, they are shown out the door. His rules are strict for a reason. You will be treated well here, and Josh and his team love to think through issues in a reasonable fashion rather than insulting those they disagree with.
Well, we live and learn :) There was a time I had a deep hatred in my heart for all women who had had abortions and was appalled when prolifers reached out to one in love and forgiveness. Now that I have read why women do it I am not inclined to be so harsh as I once was although I still consider their action to be morally reprobate. Also talking to advocates for legal abortion has stretched my horizons like you would not believe. You see, even before I came across Josh's site I had these beliefs. But he has strengthened them. And I am not the only one who cares for these things. If you hang around ERI website you will find that Josh and his team believe the way I do - deplore the action but love the person. So if ever you want to talk to Josh about this stuff feel free, I'm sure he'll try to answer you though he is a very busy man. He was kind enough to let me know he couldn't answer all my questions before he stopped responding to me but I hope he'll continue writing back again :*)
Shifty, could you please do something for me? Could you send Josh another email explaining that PJ has decided to settle down and is at present not committing behaviour worthy of banning? It would mean so much to me if you could do this for me, as I appreciate valuable insight from all angles.
Agreed 100%! I think such devices are key to finalising the abortion debate once and for all, although they don't completely answer the dilemma of adoption or parenting and those issues would have to be worked out as well, for this to really succeed. I'm not sure what kinds of "reasons" fanatics could come up with to condemn such life-saving devices though. Could you expound?
The problem, Crystal, is that once grown, the chorionic tissues cannot be re-grown. These are part of the embryo, and are grown by the embryo, in the same way that organs and other tissues develop. They can no more be re-generated than an arm can be regenerated, once amputated. It's gone forever. The theoretical artificial uterus could thus only be used for pregnancies that were conceived within the artificial uterus.
Thanks; you've just given me another difficulty to work through and I appreciate that. Do you mind if I ask for a source please? BTW I've saved your comment in my files so I can reread it for future reference.
A source? OK, I'll see if I can find one. This is something I've learned through formal education. But frankly dear, where would you think the placenta, umbilical cord, and chorion amnion come from? It comes from the embryo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placenta
Thank you for offering to find the source, and I appreciate the article you've given me so far. BTW if you don't mind my mentioning it, my online name is Crystal rather than "dear".
Thanks in abundance! I'm not so sure what was so innocent about my comments though, if you wouldn't mind expounding. I'm not trying to be vain or harp on too much but I really would like to understand.
Williamdiamon, please don't say such things. This is the kind of speech that could get you in serious trouble here. Please read Josh Brahm's commenting policy before continuing: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
That doesn't justify cutting off its only life supply. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to employ science and move it to another place once we have developed the equipment to do so either. The relationship between pregnant and unborn person is so unique it is the only way the ZEF can survive, for the present.
"That doesn't justify cutting off its only life supply." I agree. The statement "life can be cruel" is meaningful only because of the fact that life can be compassionate also. If not for that fact, "life can be cruel" would not mean anything. In other words, "life can be cruel" makes it clear that there is an alternative to being cruel. Therefore, as you say, the fact that life can be cruel does not justify being cruel.
You are a smart man, LOL :) I couldn't have argued it better myself! Life is compassionate every time someone stands for something just. We must cherish it otherwise we will have a devastating price to pay. You would agree, correct?
I agree, and I think that the devastating price is not just incidental. The devastating price is a toll on our mental peace and mental expansiveness (a "bad conscience"). When we do wrong, our mind shrinks, and when we do right, our mind grows bigger. The devastating price is not just an incidental effect of doing wrong, it is how we know we have done wrong. (And an expanded, peaceful mind is how we know we have done right.) I think that ultimately this, not any logical proof, is the only way we know right from wrong.
My mother would say that sin narrows your perspective. She is a Christian, BTW. And you're absolutely right. It's called the conscience. "When we do wrong, our mind shrinks, and when we do right, our mind grows bigger." That is a very fascinating way of looking at it. How did you come by that interpretation? Doing wrong like this corrupts our society, and contributes significantly to moral and social decay. We have so many rights but what is their meaning if my basic right to live is not respected? I am here to amuse myself during my breaks from working for the Elite System, nothing more. At least, this is what it reads to me.
"How did you come by that interpretation?" That is to be found within Indian philosophies, and it seems correct to me based on my vast experience of doing wrong and occasionally right. I will ask you a question about the Elite System later, but right now I have to go do something for a while (hopefully something right, this time).
Elite System = the system our society is run on. We go to work. We put our kids in school. Our doctors make life and death decisions over our bodies. That system. Please, tell me more about Indian philosophies as it relates to this topic. I find Indian thought very fascinating :)
"My mother would say that sin narrows your perspective. She is a Christian, BTW." But that idea is probably based on the same subjective experience of the mind as the idea of shrinking. "more about Indian philosophies as it relates to this topic" A http://www.NoTerminationWithoutRepresentation.org/dismantling-the-bodily-rights-argument-without-using-the-responsibility-argument/ on bodily rights refers to Indian philosophy (as a possibility only, and without mentioning it by name) in relation to moral intuitions. Search in that post for "transcendent experience". I'd be happy to say more about Indian philosophy, but it would be better to discuss it in the comments section of that post, since it would be off-topic here.
"But that idea is probably based on the same subjective experience of the mind as the idea of shrinking." Why do you say that? I looked in your article, and tried to find "transcendent experience" via the search engine, and couldn't. I also found it a little difficult to comment (I am using Tor at the moment). I hope you don't mind if I take my questions on Indian philosophy to SPL instead then. This forum has become a mess. People accusing each other, taking issues off-topic (and I confess I took things off-topic myself somewhat); could you come down and help sort this out please? It would mean so much to me as I don't want these folks getting banned when Josh comes back.
"I looked in your article, and tried to find 'transcendent experience' via the search engine" Hmm. It's there. Don't include the quote marks in the search. Please try searching with your browser's Search (usually Ctrl-F) rather than the blog's Search. "I am using Tor at the moment" At the bottom of the blog post, below all the other comments, can you see "Leave a Reply"? There you just need to give your name and a comment -- no need to give email address or website. There our discussion would be on-topic. But if that doesn't work, SPL would be okay. "help sort this out" I know what you mean about the mess, but I don't have any authority here and don't think any commenters would listen to me. Moreover, Josh might just find any attempts of mine to be further complicating things. Someone has deleted all the Snarkalicious comments (funny though they were, in a way) -- wasn't it Josh who did that? Maybe he's on the case.
I found "transcendent experience". But I couldn't comment on your website though I did what you said. Must be the browser :( I hope you don't mind taking it to SPL! As for the mess, you're very wise to stay out of it. I want your opinion: do you think my attempts to referee are in need of improvement or did I do well on the whole, or both? I'm asking because if I need correction I don't mind having it, rather than trying to be self-centered :)
Hmm. This comment of yours about "transcendent," "SPL" and "mess" is so similar to the comment you posted just 5 min. earlier, that I'm wondering if it appeared to you that the earlier one had not gone through. And in fact a copy of the earlier one didn't reach my email -- only a copy of this one I'm replying to. Was there some small Disqus glitch? I thought your attempts to referee were obviously coming from a positive place in you and therefore could only be well-taken by everyone including the moderator. They may have had some effect, even if it wasn't a complete solution. Actually I could have made a moral appeal of that sort also -- it was a more authority-based approach that I felt I would be unable to attempt. Some commenters wouldn't be familiar with me -- some might not even be familiar with you -- but for those who are familiar, I would think that I would have less moral authority than you, because it's obvious that you love everybody. I actually love everybody also, but I often make little effort to make that clear. Please send me a post somewhere in the SPL world.
There was a Disqus glitch. On seeing my first attempt didn't carry through I tried again and this time it worked :) Thanks for the praise; it's very sweet of you and it feels like a shower of petals on my head. I'm happy to know I was helpful to the moderator as well! Just curious - how do you know I love everyone? I don't like online fights, especially having been the target of being picked to bits by a whole group of people - it happened at least twice, and was a very painful experience :*( I'll take my comments about Indian philosophy here then. Look for me there, and I'll try to get there ASAP: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/12/what-creates-babies-sex-or-choices.html Oh, and I owe you an apology. I have been a very naughty girl by not answering all your comments though I said I would, but I think in this case it is somewhat forgivable (if you will excuse my saying so) as I have been studying for an exam!
In case I didn't make it clear I deeply appreciate your praise. Please don't feel teary-eyed over my words. Speaking the truth in love needs to be normal standard procedure for all truth-bearers. I'm sorry for asking so many questions but I wanted to be certain you were praising me and not upset at me. In short I did not want to misread your comments. Thanks so much. However, if I have misread you I apologise. If I have not I appreciate!
In other words, you're saying I think through things in contrast to just shouting "baby-killer", I take it? Thank you for the praise :) "I am almost brought to tears by the innocence of your comment." Can you explain that one, please? How to make a guest comment: Type in a comment. Where it says, "I'd rather post as a guest" with a little check button, you tick the button and you don't have to sign in. Then you can comment as a guest. Try it if you like and see how that works, and if you don't find my explanation helpful I don't mind trying to tell you again :)
My friend, I feel I need to tell you something. This kind of speech is not tolerated on this website. I realise you're vexed with Shifty because he has been most unkind to you yet this site exists primarily for the purpose of education and constructive debate. Please read the comment policy carefully, as I care a lot about your being able to comment in peace and freedom here and feel you have a lot to contribute provided you follow the commenting rules: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
Perhaps it's just that I don't view this as a war to be won or lost by argument alone. When all the science and the legal citations and the studies and the religious/secular arguments clear, it still comes down to a very personal determination. I read, reply, think. I trust others do too, even if we end up on opposing sides. Both your advocacy and mine are useful in the light of the humble realisation that those reading both of us will, in the end, follow their own North Stars -- we're both only signposts.
I am trying to stick with Number 1, your answer is fair and I agree with it :) Condemning the ACTION is not a point I can compromise on. It must be spoken of in the strongest of terms. The PEOPLE who practice the action must be shown understanding and love even while we deplore the practice. So I try to be careful about my language, not to compromise nor to cause unnecessary offence when I can reach someone for the truth. Read Josh's articles. They are thought-provoking and I am a great admirer of him :) You won't feel hated as you read, I can assure you :)
Okay. What's the difference between saying:
1) Your actions could lead you down a morally reprehensible path because your beliefs are off-base/; you are advocating for something morally reprehensible 2) You're a fan of genocide Which statement is more productive?
I can't exactly speak for him, but I think so if you're willing to change your ways and not do them again. ERI is a very young organisation, a fledgling in fact. As of present he doesn't have much time to comment and he is keeping it strict due to time constraints, but hopes to debate a little better in the future :)
That's okay. I had a dear friend banned and I don't want the same happening to you. I know you will contribute greatly if you read the comment policy and abide by the rules :)
Do you think there is any difference between calling out the practice of abortion in strong language and demonising the people who have and perform abortions?
I'd say no if keeping it alive involves holding a woman in a state of involuntary servitude. i.e. I do not object to a killing when it's a necessary component of freeing a person from slavery.
I agree that pregnancy 100% falls on a woman's body. Pregnancy is an eminently predictable avoidable outcome, though. Humans are not parthenogenetic. I'm actually glad you're asking me these questions and taking the stand you are; I tend to avoid the more frothingly vituperative posters, because it isn't productive for me. I'm not interested in being right -- like my being "right" means anything! -- only chewing on the issues. I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose her sexual behaviour, and (as arguable as this is in con circles) to have access to birth control. No woman should ever be forced into sex. No woman, IMO, should be deprived secular medical prophylactic-preventative technology. But with this authority and personal autonomy and technology comes responsibility. Women are not destined to be slaves of circumstance, we are not infants who need to be coddled, we are not stupid or dependent or inferior. We do not need abortion as it's being implemented now. We can do better, show ourselves as better, with even a modicum of applied planning and self-discipline.
I love all people, Shifty. You and her. Advocates for legal abortion and my fellow prolifers. I want peace and respect in commenting forums so I try to set a good example. BTW that is the kind of comment that could get you in trouble - name-calling is not permitted on this site. It's a safe space where prolifers and advocates for legal abortion can respectfully debate and discuss their differences, and hopefully learn from each other. I share my friend's mission. There is too much hostility between the two sides already.
If I've mistaken your identity for that of another person I owe you an apology :( It's just that I spoke to someone who had a picture and a name very similar to yours.
I remember we met once, on TFA. You were being ganged up on and I was kind to you. Remember that incident? BTW I'm against trolling. I'm a frequent commenter here and I care about Josh's rules being followed a lot.
waht is TFA? Is that the Friendly Atheist site where the so called atheists spend their time bashing Christians and bashing a God they don't believe exists? i think i remember one person being nice to me..
No it was me, and i was quickly banned from ATF for asking them why they bash a God they don't believe in since that would be like bashing the existance of the Easter bunny.. They fight pretty hard against something they claim doesn't exist... It didn't bother me being banned, it was a poisonous nasty atmosphere.. and i do remember you . I apologize but you do not have an accessible profile so i did not know if you were friend or foe.. I only came on this site cause i followed a friend here the other day, i was quickly called a Ho by SHIFTY who claims to not remember it and also claims he is full of love. Another nasty followed me here to pile on with shifty, hence the crickets... i didn't respond to him for a week of his stalking and he's angry. So when you replied i thought you were attacking..I apologize for calling you a troll. HOpe you have been well .. is it a friend of yours that runs the site? It gets nasty here from what i have seen.
Yes, it is a dear friend of mine named Josh Brahm. He has a commenting policy that I think you should read: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2/ He won't be happy when he sees his rules have not been followed but so far as I know he tries to be fair :( He is a stickler for politeness and pleasant discourse on this subject. Just curious about whether you comment at Live Action, and no, that's not to stalk you but because I wonder if guests are permitted. I tried writing to Live Action to see if they could permit guest commenting at least two months ago and as of yet there has been no reply. Do you know of any way I might reach them so they respond back quickly? Thanks for coming here and I understand your suspicion, you're not to feel bad as it's worth being suspicious of the identity of everyone on the Internet in order to keep safe. I would never stalk anyone online either, it's bad manners. Now to conversation time: What do you think of this sad incident and do you personally believe prolife language is inflammatory when describing abortion and the people who do it?
guests commenting? I don't know about Live Action. I don't know if i have been on there, I may have followed a friend there, that's how i ended up here. I don't like staying long at pro life sites, i have grown tired of the nasty , though few in number of pro abortion people that show up to disrupt civil conversations and throw misogynistic insults like shifty and his buddy did and are still doing. I don't believe the pro lifers are responsible in any way for what happened at PP. Those with another agenda, used it and other horrendous acts to deflect away from pro life and some pro abortion people that shone a bright light on the disgusting baby parts for lambourghinis acts of PP workers. They deflected from that and pushed a anti gun agenda to boot. I only dropped in to reply to a friend , i need to head out. I am glad i ran into you again.. Maybe i will come back another time to discuss when i have more time. Thanks for your civility.
Please stay on this site, and don't be afraid to come back here. Josh will not tolerate rudeness from either side. He is a kind and caring man and he wants people to reason rationally about the subject. "I don't believe the pro lifers are responsible in any way for what happened at PP. Those with another agenda, used it and other horrendous acts to deflect away from pro life and some pro abortion people that shone a bright light on the disgusting baby parts for lambourghinis acts of PP workers. They deflected from that and pushed a anti gun agenda to boot." I agree that prolifers are not generally responsible for the shooting. In fact they came out and roundly condemned it. But I was informed by advocates for legal abortion that prolifers who condemn abortion and the people performing them yet refuse to be violent are inconsistent. I can understand when it comes to people but the action itself is worthy of condemnation. Whether PP are selling or donating does not matter to me. They are in the wrong when they take the life of an innocent unborn person and place it under the guise of "health-care". I fail to see how it is healthcare to take another person's life away from them, despite my many discussions with advocates for legal abortion on the subject. Anti-gun agenda? How did they do that one? Thanks for sharing your thoughts, will bring you some philosophy I wrote up on the matter: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2389713979 http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2393898255 http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2387892637 You might find it of interest. Hoping you will have a good day and thanks for acknowledging me :)
Oh dear. Josh has been away. I fear he will not be pleased when he reads the confounded mess his forum has become. I'll try to sort it out as much as I can to protect folks from being banned: TRUMPET BLAST - ATTENTION FOLKS! READ THIS BEFORE COMMENTING: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
Thanks, Crystal. I knew there were a lot of comments going on, and just chose not to try to moderate it over the weekend, choosing time with my family instead. But yeah, 200+ comments is a lot! I'll go over everything today. I'm guessing most comments or threads that will be removed will be removed because they're off-topic. I will only delete comments or ban people for what they say on our blog. I'm not investigating claims about other blogs.
Thank you! You think I tried well then? Also another point, will you delete comments where I'm trying to calm things down, and where we actually discuss the topic of abortion and have civil conversations?
With all due respect, PJ, I think you also need to read Josh Brahm's commenting policy because these kinds of arguments do nothing for our cause. This is a safe space and needs to be treated as such. Quarrels are not liked here: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2 I respect you but I want you to be able to comment here in freedom and peace and this is why I say these things to you.
I like you, PJ, and I find your thoughts fascinating and interesting if you wouldn't mind sharing more with me and coming back here, and to SPL more often. You sound cool :)
Just for curiosity's sake would you call yourself a conservative or a liberal? You can answer the question here if you'd prefer as I don't like taking things off-topic. I also read you're a member of the LGBTQ+ community and if so you seem pretty conservative so I'm curious about how you can be a conservative and a LGBTQ+ at the same time, if you wouldn't mind answering the question: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/12/what-creates-babies-sex-or-choices.html
I'm pretty liberal socially on most things except abortion And a fiscal conservative There's lots of people in the LGBT community who are on the conservative side :-)
"I'm pretty liberal socially on most things except abortion" Similar story here though I'd consider myself quite liberal in many areas and quite conservative in others :) Fiscal conservative? Wonder what that is? "There's lots of people in the LGBT community who are on the conservative side :-)" Wow, really? How can they be when cis-hetero conservatives are not nice to them?
i think when it comes to conservatism, it's not so much about people being nice to you--it's about specific principles To be honest though....I've only ever felt comfortable around conservatives They don't care about my orientation or my ethnicity. I have had some liberal friends tell my husband how proud they are of him for marrying a minority :-/
Just for curiosity's sake why don't you like feminism? Because you seem to have a very negative opinion of it from what I have seen - that is, if you wouldn't mind answering.
It's not that I don't like it....I actually think pro life feminists are awesome But progressive feminists are weak minded. They require trigger warning and safe spaces for anything that differs from their group think
I've been told you can't be prolife and feminist, alas! So I don't call myself feminist. But I've read feminist theory on many different levels and types - in my own way, of course. I actually read from a progressive feminist site sometimes, and yes, sometimes you need trigger warnings for rape victims and spiritual abuse survivors. Sometimes you need safe spaces too. So there is value to such thought, but like you said, it can be abused! Also, what do you find awesome about prolife feminists? Just curious.
"i think when it comes to conservatism, it's not so much about people being nice to you--it's about specific principles" That's pretty brave, considering how much the extremist conservatives hate LGBTQ individuals. But to each their own, I think. "To be honest though....I've only ever felt comfortable around conservatives" I confess to being a half-breed with liberal tendencies and conservative ones. Sometimes I call myself a liberal. But I like to get along with people on their terms and mine so I hope you can feel comfortable around me too. "They don't care about my orientation or my ethnicity." These conservatives sound neat. I have never heard of conservative people being so accepting like how you describe them. Can you give me a few examples because all I have heard from people calling themselves conservative is a strong dislike of people different from themselves, so please forgive me for my ignorance. "I have had some liberal friends tell my husband how proud they are of him for marrying a minority :-/" I can sympathise; I get where they're coming from but it isn't nice having your minority status mentioned all the time is it? To each their own, I respect the fact your life journey is different from mine. Have you ever heard of "the soft bigotry of low expectations"? Also, there are different types of liberals, and some of them are just plain regressive. I don't belong in that group!
"These conservatives sound neat. I have never heard of conservative people being so accepting like how you describe them. Can you give me a few examples because all I have heard from people calling themselves conservative is a strong dislike of people different from themselves, so please forgive me for my ignorance." I was a far left liberal once. Then I was a moderate liberal. Then I woke up one day and realized I was conservative and I was lost. :) The people who are right wing jerks literally get all the press. I don't hang out with them either. Honestly, the nicest group of people I've ever been with have been conservatives, who in a different era would have liberal - they are really classical liberals. Most of the people who call themselves liberals today progressive leftists or as as you noted, totally regressive. Spent a lot of time in secular, liberal/Democrat groups - not willing to go back. :) "I can sympathise; I get where they're coming from but it isn't nice having your minority status mentioned all the time is it? To each their own, I respect the fact your life journey is different from mine." This is what middle to upper middle class racism looks like 2015. The old style, honest stuff is still around, and I think some ways it might be easier to deal with. But even more politely put, what it is not is Martin Luther King Jr's dream of judging by the content of character. I have come to think of most accusations of racism towards conservatives (but not all, there is some) as a highly convenient projection.
Indeed, Conservative LGBT people are among some of the bravest people I know. Yeah, I'm liberal on most things. I draw the line at abortion Oh, all the regular posters on LAN, and a great many number of my followers ---we're all pretty accepting of each other Yes I've heard of the soft bigotry of low expectations I think the term liberal is being misused : it's really progressive leftism
"Indeed, Conservative LGBT people are among some of the bravest people I know." They sure are, when they get slammed for being evil and ugly coz they're different! "Yeah, I'm liberal on most things. I draw the line at abortion" Me too, except I add fundie Islam and a few other little things to the list. "Oh, all the regular posters on LAN, and a great many number of my followers ---we're all pretty accepting of each other" Great! "Yes I've heard of the soft bigotry of low expectations" Which is disproportionately practiced on minorities. Ex-Muslims are victimised by it repeatedly: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/12/04/activist-maryam-namazie-heckled-at-talk-by-muslim-students-who-say-she-invaded-their-safe-space/ "I think the term liberal is being misused : it's really progressive leftism" In some ways I agree because these regressive people are hijacking the term that was meant to mean freedom and equality for themselves. In a way I disagree because there are plenty of good liberals who don't appreciate what they are doing, myself being one of them. I want to share a way that I think would really help the PL movement really whack this abortion problem once and for all if you want to hear it.
Indeed I gotta get going right now, sorry Have an x mas party I've gotta start getting for Finished with the hair Gotta go get my nails done and some waxing Ttfn!
Will share my comment on whacking abortion so hard this little softball sails into a bush and falls into quicksand, never to be heard from again, right in response to this comment, and you can read it and tell me your thoughts later, if you don't mind. Enjoy your Christmas party!
As an ardent PL supporter I realise that my words might come as a shock to quite a few individuals. But here I go. First off I’d like to recognise the good that many grassroots folks particularly in the PL movement have done – counselling women not to get an abortion (sometimes even on the sidewalks!), taking women into their own homes and helping them pay their medical bills, adopting children, offering education to women to better equip them about finance and childcare, among other things. All of these are good efforts, and the idea of CPCs, in and of itself, is a good thing also. There is much good that the PL movement has done. But there is also much bad. Some PLs have advocated for terrorism and outright harassing and stalking of abortion practitioners. They’ve also screamed hatred at people over the other side of the fence, and sometimes even shot them. Much of the PL movement is being run by a handful of people who care very little for pregnant and unborn persons and would much prefer to line their pockets with money and power. The incrementalist laws I hear of are horrifying. We have only eliminated a few small percentages of abortion – 7% for instance – in forty years. We celebrate when it is 40,000 instead of 60,000. Supposing you add up 40,000 for two years, you’ve done 80,000. Alternatively we have weakened our language to stop calling abortion what it truly is – a human rights abuse, and compromised on permitting abortions in “some cases” for some reasons. We don’t really care about ZEFs either, I don’t think. We call those drugs and devices “murderous” yet we either compromise by taking them and promoting them to others, or we lie about their abortifacient properties when they are genuinely contraceptive, thus dehumanising women and contributing to the problem. We refuse to answer the hard questions about rape and incest and 9-year olds. If life really mattered why didn’t we find a way to properly eliminate abortion by now? Also consider this: sometimes we’ve been unnecessarily strong, to the point of causing unnecessary offence, when we accuse people of loving genocide, etc. We’ve condemned women for having sex while in possession of a uteri by throwing “you do the crime you do the time” in their faces because the mainstream PL movement is run by abstinence-only individuals that care about unborn persons second to sex. Sometimes we’ve even told outright lies to advance the cause. If we have the truth what have we to fear? I’ve been thinking about this question – for years. I believe I have my answer, and am still working on it. This is it, so far as I have it:
1) Keep up the good work that has been done so far. The childcare classes, counselling the women not to do it, etc. 2) All lies must be eliminated. If someone asks another person if they are prolife they must answer honestly (I’ve heard of CPC workers not being particularly candid when the question was addressed to them, to get women in the door; if indeed this is the case this is wickedness) 3) Stop compromising. Stop offering women pamphlets on how to get “safe abortions.” It is both disingenuous and weakening to our stance. It makes us look something we’re not. Also quit the incrementalism! Incrementalism is hurting our cause like you would not believe. We must instead start campaigning for bills like the Heartbeat Bill, that get rid of 95% of abortions in one swoop. Also stop calling abortion “sin”; call it “human rights abuse” instead because that is what it truly is 4) Stop accusing. I have insisted that our language on the act of abortion stay strong. Our language towards the people, however, has to change. It is imperative to study why women get abortions in order for this to happen. No, it is more than just convenience, I found out to my shock. We must stop telling people they are Nazis, and that they love genocides, and are just as bad as slave-owners. For all you know that could be your next-door neighbour and you lost them because you were aggressive and they were questioning the issue. This doesn’t mean there is never a time to use strong language. We simply need more wisdom in when it applies, I believe, and it should be used sparingly that the effect might linger longer. In short, we must show love and debate rationally, proving from science and morality why abortion is wrong; it's more effective than calling people a bunch of names 5) Educate yourself. Read sources from prolife and pro legal abortion sides to gain greater perspective on this very difficult topic. Read feminist literature – intersectionalist, liberal, the lot. Learn about the causes of abortion – rape culture, poverty, domestic violence, etc, and combat them in your community 6) Change people’s hearts and minds. Learn how to debate advocates for legal abortion with compassion. The real point is to show them why abortion is a morally reprehensible act rather than to hate on them; you’ll find more people come around when you explain the stages of pregnancy than when you shake your fist in their faces 7) Alter our attitudes towards sex and pregnancy. As I mentioned before the mainstream PL movement is run by people who insist on abstinence before hetero marriage. We need to become more sex-positive, more embracing of people with uteri, gender-fluid, gender-queer, trans, etc. We need to stop blaming women for pregnancy and embrace the fact they can be pregnant. Give them a base to come to when it happens rather than blaming them for it. Stop letting men off the hook – it’s bad politics. Also don't fear contraceptives and sex education. They are one of our biggest weapons in defeating abortion long-term and big-time. 8) Get interested in the sciences. Part of the reason many PL people haven’t been able to advance is that they don’t have a foothold in the scientific community. They need to educate themselves on contraceptives, abortifacients, etc. If a drug or device is contraceptive, improve contraceptive and female-friendly properties. If a drug or device is abortifacient, remove abortifacient properties and strengthen contraceptive and female-friendly ones. Stop listening to the nay-sayers who claim contraception will destroy your country. Fight for voluntary sterilisation. Seek to create superior technological alternatives to abortion so that pregnant persons can assert their bodily autonomy yet unborn persons get to live. As you improve technology we hope to touch life-of-the-mother and ectopic pregnancies so that women will no longer need abortion to deal with these cases either; in short, cut abortion from demand and supply to the point where women will not want to abort because they will not need to yet unborn persons are protected by law; also we especially need such technologies for the hard cases like rape and incest; they must be done in such a female-friendly fashion that they could be performed multiple times on the same women without complications to either her or the unborn person 9) Be honest enough to recognise flaws in the system. For the present if abortion became illegal pregnant persons, especially poor ones, would get the short side of the stick. They would be thrown in prison for endangering their unborn babies via drugs and might even be possibly punished for miscarrying. We need to create laws that will ensure that these kinds of abuses cannot be carried out on pregnant persons. Women are people too 10) Improve circumstances so women can keep their babies. In addition to all we’re doing now, we have to improve our adoption system, our social safety nets, our health-care places, etc, so that women can feel safe when they have an unwanted pregnancy – safe enough not to abort, safe enough to adopt out, and safe enough to keep if they want to 11) Feminise the movement. I am so sick of watching pregnant persons being thrown under the bus all due to some traditional ideas of their worth. Pro-life means prolife for all and not just anti-abortion. They are worthy of life too. 12) Take the issue seriously, discourage flippancy with either pregnant or unborn persons, behave like a decent person, and if I think of anything else I’ll pin it up too.
Do you think that the PL movement calling abortion murder and comparing it to the Holocaust had anything at all to do with the actions of this shooter?
No, I don't. I think this guy was just a crazy man. I feel the same way about music, tv and video games. They can contain violence but, that does not mean that it will influence the listeners, watchers and gamers to go out and do violence.
"No, I don't." I agree with you! Yeah well, we have been blamed for this! All because we call abortion murder, we've influenced people to think of all advocates for legal abortion as murderers and indirectly contributed to this shooting. How selfish we are! If only we'd tone it down. Also would we be so nice to a nazi as we are nice to people who believe in legal abortion? Aren't we being inconsistent? I have been wrestling with these questions a lot and it feels a little frustrating. I have finally reached the conclusion that when it comes to people we have to tone it down unless there's good reason not to but when it comes to actions we have to be strong yet sensitive on the topic. What say you? Have you had that experience? Or was yours quite different?
Sure, no probs. I was so excited to be speaking to you at long last I asked you opinions on a lot of unrelated topics (though abortion topics are somewhat more related to the mission of this blog than any others) so that was my fault, very sorry! Did you read my long paragraph below and if so what did you think of it? And yes, I think it is on-topic!
Unfortunately, I cannot! I am a guest and as of yet they don't allow guest commenting. I tried writing to them to remedy this evil but alas no reply as of yet. Please come around to SPL and ERI more often as that is the only way I can have contact with you and I've wanted to chat with you for quite some time about so much, especially as we're so different on some issues and so similar on others :)
My circumstances. I have to keep them private for the moment but they don't permit it :( But if you could comment here and on SPL sometimes, I'd be so much obliged and I could give you a shout-out plus lots of energetic debates and empathetic chats :) That Sharon Diehl is not a woman who is very respectful I am afraid. I respect her as a person but I find her arguing tactics dishonourable.
Totes I'll come on every once in a while Oh yeah I know all about needing to remain anonymous You know they used to allow guest posters I wonder when they stopped Oh yeah Sharon... She's not a nice person. I have no respect for her. She cannot refrain from calling pro lifers all kinds of crazy names
curtsy Thanks WB! They've sent the troops out after me snicker And by troops I mean their army of sock puppets and straw men sigh Their desperation is becoming more and more tangible
Please come onto this website more often because Josh Brahm teaches people how to argue constructively with advocates for legal abortion; it's a truly wonderful site.
"Totes I'll come on every once in a while" You're very kind. Please don't forget me! I've enjoyed the chat tremenjously! "Oh yeah I know all about needing to remain anonymous" I appreciate your understanding on the point! Once my circumstances change I can get myself a proper account, but this will have to do for now I'm afraid. "You know they used to allow guest posters I wonder when they stopped" Shame. What a shame. We could have talked a long time before today if not for this barrier :( "Oh yeah Sharon... She's not a nice person. I have no respect for her. She cannot refrain from calling pro lifers all kinds of crazy names" Sharon was awful to me and all other posters so much so that even a fellow abortion advocate called her out on her bull. She ridiculed my loving upbringing because my parents taught me YEC via homeschooling (I am questioning YEC) and she was altogether jeering and mocking :(
Thanks!! That means a lot! Really? Which thread was this? I'm totes sorry about your encounter with Sharon If it makes you feel any better, she's like that with everyone who doesn't agree with her Ok, I admit that I had to look up YEC I'd never heard of it before Pro aborts really love to mock people who have been home schooled That puzzling to me though...I attended a really academic private high school and the kids who came from home schooling were so much smarter than a number of us
"Really? Which thread was this?" This one: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/09/dear-bill-nye-wheres-science-guy.html "I'm totes sorry about your encounter with Sharon" Thanks :) "If it makes you feel any better, she's like that with everyone who doesn't agree with her" It makes me feel worse, ugh. I'd feel better if I were the only one she mocked. She says she is all prickly like that cuz the fight for reproductive "rights" made her all feisty and unpleasant :( "Ok, I admit that I had to look up YEC I'd never heard of it before" Young Earth Creationism And yes, I'm telling the truth my parents were a loving twosome. "Pro aborts really love to mock people who have been home schooled" That one did, ugh. My friends don't. "That puzzling to me though...I attended a really academic private high school and the kids who came from home schooling were so much smarter than a number of us" I'd say being homeschooled benefited me a lot! Yet private and public school have their advantages too. What brought you to become a believer in prolife thought and practice? Talking to a fellow prolifer like this is so refreshing, although I deeply enjoy and cherish the company of my friends who believe in legal abortion as well.
Well, I used to be Christian and I used to be pro "choice". But after once I got to college I ended up taking so many classes in biology, anatomy, genetics and embryology that I could no longer justify bring Christian or pro "choice". I'm not an atheist either though. I've got a lot a friends and aquintences who are pro choicers, if they ever knew my stance on abortion, they'd never speak to me again :-/
Thanks for sharing your story. I thought you said you were an atheist though. As for your friends they are not true friends. My buddies know at least a good deal of where I stand on the issue and we have developed a fairly close online friendship despite this :) As for me I have always been prolife, never doubted or wavered. It is so incredibly simple. Why wouldn't you believe?
Yeah, RH Reality Check are confounded mean to prolife people. I will never comment there. It is such a hateful and charged atmosphere. You ever commented there, PJ? Also, I wish we could talk about this issue at depth a little more. Question for starters, PJ - what do you think of the claim that Operation Rescue is a terrorist group and why? Also how do you respond when people say you are being inconsistent by advocating for peace? Would sincerely appreciate an answer to the questions if that's okay.
what do you think of the claim that Operation Rescue is a terrorist group and why? There are three different organizations commonly known as Operation Rescue:
The original (now defunct) organization, led by Randall Terry and later Keith Tucci, best known for its sit-in demonstrations at abortion clinics.
Operation Save America, led by Flip Benham until 2014. It was designated as the successor to the original group, but soon expanded its scope to opposing homosexuality and Islam. OSA sometimes still refers to itself as Operation Rescue or Operation Rescue National.
No I've never commented there. Even if you're nice, you're met with invective and nasty comments Hmm.... What is it that OR has done to be called a terrorist group? Id say that no ones perfect and I try my best to be nice However, if I get attacked, I will not back down
"you're met with invective and nasty comments" I have. But I have also been able to win the respect of most advocates for legal abortion. I have two that I chat with regularly and they are very kind to me despite our disagreements :)
:) Yes it is. I am prolife in case you didn't catch it. Though many people who like me tend to consider me "pro-choice" because in some ways I seem close to their way of thinking on women's rights though NOT on abortion! Pro-"choice" in every way but the most important one, I was told once. The Most important one meant Abortion, I cannot ever accept that practice as it is very immoral to take innocent human life but I stand up for contraception and sex ed and social safety nets and other measures to reduce abortion via supply :)
Honestly even if you weren't pro life you've won my respect because of how nice you are And yes, I agree: pro choice on everything except abortion I'm totally bummed you can't come onto LAN :-/
"Honestly even if you weren't pro life you've won my respect because of how nice you are" Thanks so much! My friends on other websites who disagree with me on this issue feel the same way :) "And yes, I agree: pro choice on everything except abortion" Great! Just wondering though, about how you handle controversial drugs and devices that some say have abortifacient properties due to preventing implantation, yet others disagree and say they have purely contraceptive properties. Just for curiosity's sake, do you think the PL movement is in need of improvement in any areas at all and if so, how? If not, why would you be content with its present state? "I'm totally bummed you can't come onto LAN :-/" As am I. The point is they never responded to my email ever. So I can't for the present though I have so wanted them to respond. Can you somehow get something through to them about guest comments, as you comment there regularly, and perhaps they will take a look. Thanks for talking :)
Great! Just wondering though, about how you handle controversial drugs and devices that some say have abortifacient properties due to preventing implantation, yet others disagree and say they have purely contraceptive properties. I'm mostly agnostic on it :-) Just for curiosity's sake, do you think the PL movement is in need of improvement in any areas at all and if so, how? If not, why would you be content with its present state? Everything always has room for improvements Nothing is perfect and no one should become complacent. I have no say over what goes on at LAN. I'm not a mod there
You know they have an agenda when they use the term "anti-choice". It's like expecting a pro "choicer" to believe anything that comes out of Operation Rescue.. We all have our personal biases... The battle lines are clearly drawn
"You know they have an agenda when they use the term "anti-choice"." To me this agenda means calling abortion a morally valid, acceptable "choice". What does this particular agenda mean to you? "It's like expecting a pro "choicer" to believe anything that comes out of Operation Rescue.." I can seen the sense in that. "We all have our personal biases..." Intellectual honesty demands that we be open to hearing and learning from a variety of sources even if we personally disagree with them. That is one particular purpose of Josh's work, actually, and this website is part of it. "The battle lines are clearly drawn" Why do you say that? I hope you don't mind my asking, I'm curious as to why you call it a "battle". Personally I would have tended to call it a "human rights issue" more because I don't see myself at war with anyone but I do see myself standing for human rights. However, you are free to disagree, and if you do I'm open to hearing why.
To me this agenda means calling abortion a morally valid, acceptable "choice". What does this particular agenda mean to you? The same Intellectual honesty demands that we be open to hearing and learning from a variety of sources even if we personally disagree with them. That is one particular purpose of Josh's work, actually, and this website is part of it. Yet, I've yet to see much intellectual honesty from the pro "choice" side. I used the term battle because i think both sides are on the attack You're right though, it's a civil rights....battle.
"Yet, I've yet to see much intellectual honesty from the pro "choice" side." I've experienced having prolife sources being called "lies" and dismissed out of hand rather than thoughtfully rebutted so I understand where you're coming from. Although I know one person who tries to rebut rather than dismiss. She's incredibly intellectually sharp, I think. Do you mind if I ask a small favour of you?
"The same" You are aware of bodily autonomy arguments, aren't you? "Yet, I've yet to see much intellectual honesty from the pro "choice" side." In the sense that its personhood is not fully acknowledged I tend to empathise with this opinion. Yet the point of bodily autonomy is not getting rid of it because it is a nuisance but rather getting rid of it despite its personhood and humanity. Despite all this my two friends try hard to be intellectually honest people. "I used the term battle because i think both sides are on the attack You're right though, it's a civil rights....battle." I suppose I could look at it that way. I simply don't tend to use military-sounding language to describe my position, for the aforementioned reason above. Just for curiosity's sake, have you ever heard about tokophobia, and if so, what do you believe about tokophobia?
I think we need to get rid of the most of the religious aspect of the pro life movement. All CPC's should be untied and secularized and operate in a similar fashion to PP We need to make more public the good that CPC's do for women and show NARAL to be the liars that they are.
"I think we need to get rid of the most of the religious aspect of the pro life movement." Which aspect is that? Also there is more than one aspect as I mentioned in my long comment. Traditional prolifism is by its nature run by religious people although you don't have to be religious to be prolife. And I agree we must get rid of it. Why not start something grassroots that is genuinely secular? "All CPC's should be untied and secularized and operate in a similar fashion to PP" I think so myself. Women need to be given all their options without judgment and have access to contraception and sex education, services they can't do without. The problem with religious CPCs, much as they do good, is that they are out of touch with the sex-positive culture at large. People are going to have sex. Let's give them the tools to do it not condemn them. "We need to make more public the good that CPC's do for women and show NARAL to be the liars that they are." Can you tell me the good you know that CPCs do please? Also how are NARAL lying to the public? I am curious to know especially as I have heard both positive and negative things about CPCs. For instance have you heard of the manual How to Start and Operate Your Own Pro-Life Outreach Crisis Pregnancy Center by Robert Pearson? Also this is one place where they say negative things about CPCs, and I'll dig up more for you if you want me to: http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=163224 I'm curious about that pamphlet because I want to see for myself if they are telling the truth or just trying to smear the PL movement yet again. Also what do you think of the idea of forcing PP facilities to stop providing abortions and only permitting the sale of contraceptives and offers of sex education, via legal and financial punishment yet not shutting PP down? Do you think that is a good or a bad idea?
Which aspect is that? All of it. We need to stop invoking god; it just turns people off. Why not start something grassroots that is genuinely secular? In the works. :-) I think so myself. Women need to be given all their options without judgment and have access to contraception and sex education, services they can't do without. The problem with religious CPCs, much as they do good, is that they are out of touch with the sex-positive culture at large. People are going to have sex. Let's give them the tools to do it not condemn them. Yes Can you tell me the good you know that CPCs do please? You mentioned some yourslef... they help women with free day care, they raise funds to help pay for rent , food, etc.. Bernard Nathenson, co-founder of NARAL even admitted that they lied about the numbers of women dying in order to sway public opinion OH.. and Naral had some "investigations" on how CPC's are lying to women.... you can google it.. it's a total farce with zero evidence Also how are NARAL lying to the public? Bernard Nathenson, co-founder of NARAL even admitted that they lied about the numbers of women dying in order to sway public opinion Oh.. and Naral had some "investigations" on how CPC's are lying to women.... you can google it.. it's a total farce with zero evidence-- but pro aborts eat it up I am curious to know especially as I have heard both positive and negative things about CPCs. For instance have you heard of the manual How to Start and Operate Your Own Pro-Life Outreach Crisis Pregnancy Center by Robert Pearson? I've not, no. Also what do you think of the idea of forcing PP facilities to stop providing abortions and only permitting the sale of contraceptives and offers of sex education, via legal and financial punishment yet not shutting PP down? Do you think that is a good or a bad idea? I think that's a brilliant idea.
"All of it. We need to stop invoking god; it just turns people off." Stop making God the reason to end abortion. Agreed. Yet plenty of religious and spiritual folks will oppose it, and will mention God as their reason. Science and morality should be our primary reasons I think. Though it must be admitted many abolitionists were deeply devout Christians. Ever heard of William Wilberforce? Also, Martin Luther King Jr was a devout Christian and he used God to rouse his people to action over the vileness of racial segregation. It's not so much the faith expression as the religious principles on sex that turn people off, I think. When you tell girls they're a licked candy bar for having sex before marriage then yeah, you'll have a problem. Of course people will think that you're trying to control pregnant persons! Get rid of the rape culture and apologism and abuse of women out of the PL movement as it's all rife in church culture, sadly :( If you can't jump ship and start something new! "In the works. :-)" Great! Can you tell me its name? "Yes" How many prolife leaders will take such wise suggestions on board? When you have a conference in Utah opposing contraception and saying it opens the door to abortion because you're not open to life rather than because it could abort, ugh! What about when Bristol Palin opposes young women being implanted with IUDs (personally not sure if they stop zygotes from implanting but if they do my objections run in a different direction; would not oppose if they're genuine contraceptives), it's the principles of the matter? Why not improve contraceptives rather than banning them? What are these people thinking! For goodness' sake it's time for reform! Or breaking away and forming a new branch based on sex-positive principles. "Bernard Nathenson, co-founder of NARAL even admitted that they lied about the numbers of women dying in order to sway public opinion" Do you mind if I ask for a source please? "OH..and Naral had some "investigations" on how CPC's are lying to women....you can google it.. it's a total farce with zero evidence" I will when I can. But could you obtain a couple links for me to get started? Also, how are their claims baseless? Just curious. "I've not, no." I think it's time those kinds of things get asked about more often. I wish I could obtain the pamphlet myself then read it. I'd really like to see who's telling the truth here. "I think that's a good idea." I will say it is worthy of consideration at least. When you have prolifers going to PP to have resources for dealing with an unwanted pregnancy and buying contraceptives from them, it is a thought. On the other hand, if it is indeed true that PP has such a dark past with eugenics, is this okay to consider? Taking all the evidence into account is very important when dealing with questions like this. BTW that idea came from a friend I have who is an advocate for legal abortion. She threw the suggestion out there saying if PL movement cared for life like it claims it would do just that rather than defunding PP and making the organisation defunct, basically. Some of the PL leaders are wackos. The PL grassroots seems a pretty intelligent bunch IMO. But it looks as if the higher up you go the dumber you get. Though I will say this doesn't apply to all PL leaders but rather a select few but powerful number. For instance, ever heard of Doug Wilson? He's not exactly a leader but he has clout in the more extreme factions of conservativism.
Shifty, with all due respect, please STOP the name-calling and READ Josh Brahm's commenting policy. Such offensive speech is not permitted on this site. I believe you have very interesting points to make but they must be made respectfully and according to his rules: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
The burden does not fall on women 100%. Ask the men required to pay child support for children proven not to be theirs. They did not even get the pleasure of that grunt and squirt to be accountable for 18+ years of payment. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/11/paternity.cases/index.html?eref=yahoo What constitutes the line of unborn sentience, "real live people", etc continues to be challenged by increasingly more refined scientific and technological parameters. But I must commend you -- when you write "And the unborn do not have any greater rights than fully live and sentient people.", you recognise they have equal rights to life. Definitely not greater: I agree. Equal. So they have a right to life, just as you and I do.
That is one opinion, certainly. Another is that a life created wilfully through conscious action is ethically owed care and consideration by its creators. This is the foundation of child support payments and neglect laws, after all.
That's true, and also applies only to born children. If you can find me any case where a man has been ordered to pay child support for a fetus, or a miscarriage or stillbirth, I'd love to read it. I would be opposed to ordering child support for fetuses, of course. They have no economic needs.
Oh, that's a straw man. Foetuses are not really considered people unless the carrying woman says so, just as men are not compelled to support their pregnant partners simply by virtue of them being pregnant. However, it gets a little complicated at foetal killing. The mother may choose to do so. The father may not force her (legally) to do so, even if it poses no more risk or harm to her than a standard medical abortion. This adds the layer as you've noted of the mother's biological autonomy in addition to the personhood of the foetus. This boils down to a particular difference in vision as to how much emphasis female voice and biology be given as weighed against the rights of non-women. As I do not believe I should be given any special abilities as a woman under the law than either a man or even a foetus (as the unborn largely meet my benchmark for what is a human being), I must reject abortion (among other things, like affirmative action) unless or until a man has the right to terminate his offspring under the same conditions women can. If the foetus is not a person, and the abortion is performed under standard medical care and risk (which is widely viewed as extremely low), why should the biological father not be able to terminate with the same freedom as the mother? Unfortunately "because she feels a certain way" is not a good legal precedent; and the mere facts of her biology, if upheld, open the door for the mere facts of the foetus' biology to be considered equally. Why does one biology trump another?
Oh, and by the way, if he's pregnant, he has the right to an abortion. He cannot, however, force her to undergo any kind of surgery. Did you miss that memo?
Yes, I know the terminology and the Beatie case. :) I give little shrift to trans terminology in terms of abortion, as identity has no bearing on what happens when sperm meets ovum. I accept that "man" and "woman" are becoming increasingly irrelevant in social terminology, but speaking from a biological standpoint there are still benchmarks and I do not tailor my language to suit gender fluidity. Beatie is a he socially. A she genetically and structurally. In this way there are no pregnant men (males). Beatie is not a man, but a trans man.
"I accept that "man" and "woman" are becoming increasingly irrelevant in social terminology, " I don't. I'm resisting Wonderland. Tired of the Queen of Hearts ruling the conservation. ;) "Beatie is not a man, but a trans man." I'm not even willing to give that much ground in this particular topic. She's a woman, who has successfully convinced the world for her own purposes that she is not. She was a model in her teens, for goodness sake. Yes, she does pull off a tie very well in male manner. But her walk in Wonderland is going to mess up her kids. I don't have much patience for it.
As a liberal I have to respectfully disagree. Personally, as I was raised old-fashioned, my mind will still think of the trans person as their biological sex. When I first saw Caitlyn Jenner's sex change I couldn't help noticing her hands still looked masculine. I can still see things in the sex-changed person that remind me of their biological sex. Finally when I see a man with a dress on while having a beard, I personally find that very difficult to accept. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop fighting for trans rights. Yes, I call them transmen or transwomen because I care about being inclusive and not treating them badly. I might personally disapprove or seek to question their choices intellectually but I can understand where they're coming from in regards to their identity and I respect and support that decision because that is what they believe themselves to be; they are no more confused for this than I am for being a cis-hetero woman. I strongly support gender-fluid language, BTW. So we will have to disagree on this topic, I'm sorry. That doesn't mean I won't treat you with respect; it just means we will have a difference at this particular juncture.
"I might personally disapprove or seek to question their choices intellectually but I can understand where they're coming from in regards to their identity and I respect and support that decision because that is what they believe themselves to be; they are no more confused for this than I am for being a cis-hetero woman." I have been around people with mental illnesses. My Mother has had been a client of the mental health system for as long as I can remember. I can tell you from personal experience that the way to make everything worse is to try to make their pretend world as real as possible. It just never works. I do appreciate the pain, more than it might initially appear. But the way to less pain is to acknowledge reality, not shelter people from it. It's the only path to peace or even something resembling it. It seems to rude them, but their system of understanding the world is already quite skewed. "That doesn't mean I won't treat you with respect; it just means we will have a difference at this particular juncture." That's perfectly fine. The world at large, thankfully, has not had my personal experiences on the matter. :)
I know what mental illness is. If they perceive themselves to be mentally ill I will share that opinion. If they don't I won't. It's all on them. Although I fear I might be seen as transphobic for some of my views :( If a gay person wants to change to hetero, I support that decision. If they don't I won't. Yep, I actually got in trouble for saying being gay was a choice but a choice to be respected like religion, once :( As a mentally ill person (schizophrenia) I personally disagree that they are mentally ill. I have been recently battling (a little) with a guy who thinks transpeople aren't people but now they've changed themselves they deserve death. He gloated over the fact he'd spat in a gay person's face. I'm curious as to your take on that one.
" If they perceive themselves to be mentally ill I will share that opinion. If they don't I won't. It's all on them." Yes, this is a difference of experience/opinion. I've never met a truly mental ill person who really thought they were mental ill or really accepted it. Not even my Mother, really. The only way to classify mental ill, to me is the inability to cope, in some manner with life and requiring outside help in the form of therapy and drugs. People who imagine their life would be better as another gender are chronic users of the mental health system by definition. A shocking number of homosexuals are the same. They simply aren't coping with life and turn to others for help on a regular basis, for stuff that most people simply face with a shoulder shrug, a laugh, or sometimes a cry. "As a mentally ill person (schizophrenia) I personally disagree that they are mentally ill." I'm going to go for as gentle as possible with this next statement and follow by a compliment. If you really are schizophrenic, you are no position to judge the mental health of others. :( That said, it must be extremely mild and/or anxiety induced because none of the schizophrenics I've met are having conversations like this. (Admittedly small number, I'm not a working professional.) Nor have they ever been really able to accept it. One of the many ironies of life (at least from my view.) The moment you can 100% accept you have a mental illness, you're well on your way to recovery. "I have been recently battling (a little) with a guy who thinks transpeople aren't people but now they've changed themselves they deserve death. He gloated over the fact he'd spat in a gay person's face. I'm curious as to your take on that one." I think it's very unfortunate that people use the problems of others to hate and shore up their own insecurities. It's terrible actually and I would stop it if I saw it and argue against myself. There's really no excuse for that type of behavior.
"Yes, this is a difference of experience/opinion. I've never met a truly mental ill person who really thought they were mental ill or really accepted it. Not even my Mother, really." Well, a mentally ill person, if they can accept there is a problem, there is a chance for healing. Also I don't accept it. I acknowledge it exists but I don't call it "my mental illness" but rather "the mental illness that assaults me". "The only way to classify mental ill, to me is the inability to cope, in some manner with life and requiring outside help in the form of therapy and drugs." As someone who is seriously considering therapy when I get the opportunity, I take issue with that definition. Do you seriously believe that a person who suffered torture in prison (I didn't) and would go for therapy to work through that problem is mentally ill? Also I have a very dear friend who was raped, and the thing she needs is therapy. To say that victims of cruelty are mentally ill because they need therapy sounds unreasonable to me, to say the least. Last but not least, some people suffer with depression who do need drugs, and yes they would be mentally ill. But mentally ill doesn't necessarily mean violent. I realise that a lot of people in the LGBTQ+ community suffer greatly with a lot of unresolved issues, so I'm not just going to dismiss what you said about these people getting therapy, etc, because I'm not that close-minded. I think that at least part of their problems stem from the fact they are seen as dirty and abnormal for who they are/who they choose to be. "If you really are schizophrenic, you are no position to judge the mental health of others." True indeed. But, with respect, it seems to me that you could be doing just that. Can you honestly prove that trans people are more mentally ill by virtue of being trans than cis people (people whose biological gender matches up with their mental gender)? "That said, it must be extremely mild and/or anxiety induced because none of the schizophrenics I've met are having conversations like this." There are times I struggle to type or write. You could be correct in saying it was mild, but I had problems much more severe than this a long time back. Furthermore, I'm not on drugs. That might make a difference. I asked God to heal me and s/he is doing just that. "I think it's very unfortunate that people use the problems of others to hate and shore up their own insecurities. It's terrible actually and I would stop it if I saw it and argue against myself. There's really no excuse for that type of behavior." On that, we agree totally. I appreciate the fact you can recognise such behaviour is wrong. Furthermore, I don't believe just because you disapprove of an action means you are a hater of people. I hate abortion, fundie Islam, rape culture, white privilege, and a host of other evils. But that doesn't mean I let my hate of the action transfer onto the people practicing these actions, despite the fact I consider such actions extremely evil. I don't think it's wrong to critically evaluate a sexual behaviour either. I do it myself. I simply believe that critically evaluating a sexual behaviour shouldn't include discrimination against a marginalised group of people without good reason. If it could be proved to me, for instance, that gays are more pedophilically inclined than heteros from unbiased evidence or personal critical observation I wouldn't shut that out. But at the same time I would not be open to hating on all gays because of the actions of a few, or even a significant minority of the minority. I deeply appreciate that we can talk civilly about this, LOL. Also, I realise it's getting off-topic. Why not transfer the conversation to this website: http://blog.secularprolife.org/ Thanks for the chat :)
Lol, I've been kicked off message boards for refusing to use genderfluid language (I think it was when I pointed out the Mod used "dickbag" freely as an insult... Tsk tsk! ^_^ ). My patience is increasingly wearing thin as well. True story: A family member works in a homeless shelter for men, and is now having to navigate trans issues that are disrupting the already tenuous ecosystem of the street community. Last week, a woman showed up claiming to be a man, demanding a berth. The shelter must comply. She then used her time there to turn tricks. When questioned, she said "Well I'm a GAY man.". There is also a guest there claiming he is a woman, so he wants a female bathroom... in a men's shelter. The workers have had to give up THEIR private bathroom to accommodate. Insanity.
Does the woman "own" the foetus' body? No? But the law allows for the foetus to be recognised as a separate charge, if they both are killed. If I accept special graft simply for my biology and female identity, I can never complain when I am dismissed or insulted or denied jobs for it. My female standing as a protected class, in need of more allowances than men because I have a uterus, is already legally recognised.
Nonsense. You don't get rights because of your uterus. I have no uterus, and all the same rights you have. And neither of us have any right to any organ that belongs to another. No the woman doesn't "own" the fetus. But she does own her uterus, and as such gets final say on what it's used for. You know (and I'm not trying to be a smartass), I have never heard an anti-abortion argument that couldn't be used to justify rape. That's right. I don't care what my vagina is "for." It's mine, and I get to decide who uses it and how. And I can kill to keep that right.
Having a uterus grants a woman to kill a conceived organism she only contributed 50% to the creation of, merely because her uterus carries it. That's a lot of power. If we do not have rights to organs that are not ours, then a woman cannot ethically donate the organs of that foetus. I agree a woman can dictate what her reproductive organs are used for -- which is why I come down so heavily on rapists and why I staunchly advocate for birth control. Except in the rare and horrible cases of rape, a woman does indeed have the ability to stop her uterus from being used to house a baby... before it happens. Afterward is when the lines become drawn -- because there is a question of where her body stops and another's begins.
Yes, women CAN ethically donate the fetal tissue. And she can donate the organs of her born minor children after they die untimely as well. Why? Certainly not "because she has a uterus." But because in the case of a fetus, the tissue was removed from her body. In the case of a minor child (say an anencephalic infant) because she is the natural parent who has certain legal rights over the disposition of remains of her child. That's just how it works. Like most anti-choice people, you are making value judgments about how women have sex. Otherwise, you wouldn't so easily assign less value to a fetus conceived in rape to one conceived in love. To me, there is no difference. She can house or decline to house either one. I can conclude that to you, it's not about a fetus. There is no line to draw. Her body is always hers. I have nothing but admiration for organ donors, and whole body donors. Their selfless donation makes it possible to save lives and improve the lives of many others. You're barking up the wrong tree if you expect that to disgust me.
I don't expect anything about you. :) So sometimes we do have rights over organs that aren't ours. Excellent! So a foetus piggybacking on its mother's living organs should not be a disgusting idea; that's just how it works.
Uh, NO we do not have rights over organs that aren't ours as regards adult human beings and adult corpses. You need to pay closer attention. I said PARENTS have rights over the DISPOSITION of their minor children's remains until such time as the child becomes an adult. Parents can also compel their LIVING minor children to undergo medical treatment, up to and including surgery, but even that includes no right to make an organ donor of a living minor child. The implications are that all babies and children who need organ transplants must obtain them from babies and children who have passed on, because until they grow large enough to accept adult organs, there are no living donors for them. Trust me, if it were you or your child, you would develop a deep appreciation for the generous donations of people in tragic situations. They care enough about others to make that sacrifice. I myself have cadaver donor tissue in my own body, and it's greatly enhanced the quality of my life. I have nothing but gratitude for the anonymous donor. So much so that I wrote letter to their families, letting them know how their unselfish gift made a big difference to a real person, rather than an abstract idea. I think they deserved to know that. And my desire is to return the favor when the time comes. I am a registered organ donor. It's the right thing to do.
I'm a registered organ donor too (not that most of mine will be useful when the time comes), and I gave blood like clockwork until I was prohibited from doing so. This is not about organ donation. It is about your challengeable statements about who has what right to whose organs, and the rationale for such. If a mother has the authority over her child's organ donation, why does she not have the coin's flip side of care for those organs? Why is she only responsible in the negative, especially in utero?
"If a mother has the authority over her child's organ donation, why does she not have the coin's flip side of care for those organs?" Because if the organs are being DONATED, that means the child is DEAD. Did you seriously need to be informed on that matter? You and all the up-voters of your comment? Really. No wonder you don't 'get it.' As an adult and a person, I do not have to allow an unwanted person to use my body as a walking incubator.
Well, in the case of the foetus, already dead when the organ donation begins -- which is to say, killing them in such a way the organs are preserved -- gets a bit grey. They're certainly dead by the time the process is finished, though. Evisceration does that to a person.
That is a matter of linguistic sophistry intended to soft-peddle the objective reality of both the process and the target. The alteration of language to mask the potential horror of a situation is very common.
Truth! "Don't call it a baby; that's dishonest." Yet when the mother wants it, she automatically talks about the baby. I'm not against using scientifically correct terms, though. If it's foetus, scientifically, I will use that. Yet the colloquial usage term is baby and that's what we try to point out here - the inconsistency. Also softened - the "procedure", etc - no we need to talk about it in its ugliness so people will be repulsed - with the action not the person committing the action - and turn away from it.
Viewing abortion baldly is what finally changed my mind; I'd only heard the soft prettified words. I'd never looked at the reality. Once I did, my switch flipped. Not that I'm especially squeamish -- quite the opposite -- just that the "not a person" stuff went poof in an instant.
Yes, I know. How can they not see? I was raised in a very prolife family in the sense that my family's belief on the question was prolife; we didn't campaign outside clinics or that sort of thing. I have always believed abortion is wrong. You can't help recognising its humanity when you see the little unborn person developing, via ultrasound, etc. It's a small person all right. When they use the big-sounding words to describe abortion, they are trying to soften that nasty reality that abortion kills, but when someone looks up the words they use they learn differently. What led you to view abortion baldly, if you wouldn't mind relating?
I was touring the US with a band, and I'd gotten in the habit of flipping through the phone books to see how different the US was from Canada. While in Delaware, I stumbled upon a full page of ads for abortion clinics. As here abortion is part of our healthcare, I'd never seen an advertisement for it. One of these ads had, in very small print, "up to 23 weeks" (NB: this may have changed in legislation since then, but such does not change the core of this narrative). I read that line a few times. 23 weeks. 5 1/2 months. This niggled me. I'd patted the bumps of 5 1/2 month mothers. Surely it wasn't just a clump of cells then? So when I got home, I went to the library and researched embryology and foetal development. I then promptly puked in the bathroom for several hours. I felt I'd been lied to my whole life. THIS is why ultrasounds are important.
Well, I am glad you found the truth for yourself. They are telling the truth when they say it's a clump of cells ... in the very early stages, zygote and possibly blasocyst, but even then, the cells are rapidly dividing and moving. When it has attached to the wall and begun developing into a human form, it has become more than a clump of cells. I mean, little buds start forming on the hands about, like, six weeks after the last menstrual period: http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302 How can this not be a human being? I do not understand. To perpetuate this idea of it being a clump of cells at five months is beyond me. Yet they might say "bodily autonomy instead" because it's obviously more than a clump of cells then. It's wrong, all wrong. "THIS is why ultrasounds are important." Personally, I think that ultrasounds should be voluntary if a woman is getting a check-up and being counseled not to have an abortion. If she refuses an ultrasound it is not wrong to show her pictures of what she is carrying though, I think. Yes, ultrasounds are important because they blow this stuff out of the water. You're right there.
When I am dead, and my body is "eviscerated" "dissected" or any other word you chose to use (mine will be donated to medical science, and medically, the word "evisceration" doesn't apply, but dissection definitely does) language DOES matter. You can't simply say "Abortion means the murder of an innocent human being" when the word means nothing of the kind. This is "Lewis Carol-ism", stating "Words mean what I say they mean." No, they absolutely don't, and that is the linguistic sophistry. "Person" is a legal term, and doesn't always mean a human being. "Abortion"(as we're using it) is a medical term meaning the termination of a pregnancy prior to viability. "Murder" is also a very precise legal term that isn't defined the same as "killing." And the victim need not be "innocent."
Okay, I've read it. :) This is fairly easy to deconstruct, for me. Consensual sex resulting in conception cannot be equated to forcible kidnapping. The Good Samaritan argument dissipates when the woman chooses to hook herself to the violinist, or even chooses the predictable roulette possibility of such. A first year Crit-Think student could destroy this. Edited to add: I'm not inclined to post here anymore. But I've enjoyed the discussion and give a nod for the breadth I've been given.
And I'm of the opinion that even if the woman consents to be hooked up to the violinist, she can withdraw her consent at any time. And my opinion reflects the legal reality of the situation. You're arguing, in essence, that if I have consented to something, that consent is once for all time. Consent doesn't operate that way. I can withdraw consent in the middle of a sex act, in the middle of pregnancy, and yes, after a week or a month of hooking myself to the violinist. EVEN if he will die, and EVEN if he only needs it for nine months. The fact of the matter is I don't owe it to him. His need doesn't create a right. And yes, it would be a tremendous act of Good Samaritanism, regardless of who did the hooking up.
Fair enough. It would mean so very much if we could carry our discussion onto this page: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/12/what-creates-babies-sex-or-choices.html You could give your opinion of the article at the site and I could respond to you there not here. As for that Thompson's Violinist, I have run into it commonly in my discussions with abortion advocates. It is such a confusing argument I nearly tear my hair out over it. Warning - if you debate with these people for a long time you will hear it, mark my words. "Consensual sex resulting in conception cannot be equated to forcible kidnapping. The Good Samaritan argument dissipates when the woman chooses to hook herself to the violinist, or even chooses the predictable roulette possibility of such." Ah, but you see, the point is, she chooses to allow the unborn person a chance at life, just like the woman choosing or being forced to be hooked to the violinist, and she can withdraw her consent at any time. So, in other words, you cannot use another person's organs without their consent, not even for your very life. Ever heard of the court case McFall vs Shrimp; if not, I suggest you read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McFall_v._Shimp This is one case that is being used by advocates for legal abortion to stop prolifers from winning in the legal sphere.
It's merely a thought facet. In born children, the mother has both a duty of care to a recognised person as well as authority over their medical decisions. In unborn children, there is no duty of care but similar authority, despite scientific evidence of individual personhood (especially at the point of development at which organs become biomedically useful). Is this, yet again, an asymmetric example of "Mother knows best"?
Okay, I hope you don't mind if I ask you what type of bodily autonomy you believe in. Quotes taken from the following: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/autumn-in-the-sovereign-zone-why-its-my-body-i-can-do-what-i-want-wont-do/ "The Right to Refuse Argument states that even if the unborn is a human being, a woman has the right to refuse to allow the unborn the use of her body." "The Sovereign Zone Argument states that even if the unborn is a human being, a woman should still be able to have an abortion because she has the right to do anything she wants with anything inside the sovereign zone of her body." Which one is it?
Bodily autonomy is a pretty basic concept, Crystal. It means nobody is ever entitled to anything from your body without consent. Even if you're a corpse.
That makes sense. So I take it you believe that even if the unborn is a human being, a woman has the right to refuse to allow the unborn the use of her body? I ask not because I'm dumb but because I want to get it right, and also because others see bodily autonomy a little differently, as I described in my previous reply.
Hi, Javelina, it's Crystal. Thanks for your patience and civility :) I read through your conversation last week, and wanted desperately to chat with you about the nature of criminalisation and a few other topics because I don't mind a little healthy debate. "If I accept special graft simply for my biology and female identity, I can never complain when I am dismissed or insulted or denied jobs for it." With respect, I must disagree, because women should never tolerate being dismissed, insulted, or denied jobs for being a woman, if I am reading you correctly.
Hi Crystal. :) I agree that women should never be treated badly simply because they're women. The other side of that coin is that women should never be granted extra privilege simply because they're women. Abortion is a deeply feminist topic for me; I simply think, in application, the pro-choice side is truly turning women into "the weaker sex -- needless slaves to their biology -- instead of establishing equity with men.
Please come back here more often, Javelina. I appreciate your contributions. I think you're right about privilege as applied to women. However, sometimes women should at least have certain advantages tailored to suit their needs, like menstrual leave, for instance. Have you heard of it? "Abortion is a deeply feminist topic for me; I simply think, in application, the pro-choice side is truly turning women into "the weaker sex -- needless slaves to their biology -- instead of establishing equity with men." How is it doing that? BTW I'm prolife.
Good heavens, menstrual leave as opposed to the same sick leave men can claim? No, never heard of it, and I'd never claim it. To do so would reinforce to my employer that I am only an equal employee when my uterus wasn't active. I wouldn't support especial prostate or priapism leave, either. Leave is leave. My stance that the pro-choice movement as a whole is setting back gender equity is fairly straightforward: Women are legally granted the right to terminate a foetus solely based on being women. Given that:
pregnancy is largely foreseeable and overwhelmingly preventable; and
a woman cannot conceive alone; and
men are held responsible for their contribution to their offspring post-birth despite having no ability to dictate the birth of their offspring under the law, and
an individual can be held liable for the death of a foetus during a murder, and
the determination that a foetus is a person vs. being a non-person can be as illogical as a few seconds of lung use in the open air, then QED, the law follows a narrative not based in science or gender equity, but based in "sympathy" for women, and gives them an unjust weight based solely on having female parts. I do not want sympathy (or laud) for being born with lady parts. I wholly reject being judged solely on having female parts. I do not want laws in place that canonise being female as requiring injustice to others. To do so lessens me.
You have a very interesting perspective on menstrual leave. I tend to agree with it precisely because women's bodies work differently from men's and because menstruation can be used as a time to rest, recuperate, and gain new insights if it is believed in and loved properly. Menstruation is not treated with enough respect by the West and a few other cultures, I'm afraid. I realise it's an old-fashioned notion to allow women to rest or take time off for emotional vacation (as they're having pleasant ones in that case) during that time, but it's one I believe in as it is strongly supported by so many other cultures and I have seen the benefits of it in my life. It is a known fact that pregnancy can kill women, hence the intense desire to allow women that leave of absence from responsibility. Furthermore, men don't have to suffer any potential drawbacks to pregnancy, although they do have their wallets sucked dry. However, I agree with your point that women can take innocent life simply because they are women. That is not just to the unborn person, I think. You have explained your position very well and have given me thoughts I never considered before, so thanks. I think they are injustices too, but not so much to gender equality outside the womb as to all unborn persons, male and female alike. I wonder about the unborn women who should have had careers and equal pay. Apparently, their rights don't count in the womb because they're "intruders" if the woman doesn't want them.
You're making me think too, Crystal, which is a gift I appreciate. Disqus, overall, has been incredibly useful at helping me refine my beliefs through both challenge and support. Menstruation is a real thing, and is not treated (IMO) with balance currently. I support women in the military on principle, for example, but pretending it doesn't exist and doesn't affect performance (especially in Infantry) is foolish to me. Both the push to pretend women are the same as men in practice, and the glorification of its superficial byproducts as a feminist icon, gloss over the very truths it represents: women are different, we are life-bearers, necessary to society on a significant level. Pregnancy can be harrowing. I am sympathetic to fears of it, especially because my own nearly killed me. I always come back, though, both to the fact that I knew this going into it and accepted the risk, and that my own diligent and exacting birth control/sexual refusal practices meant I really did choose my own risk. Eyes wide open. I worry about the infantilisation present in (at least my own country's) abortion laws. When women are given a free pass for reckless or thoughtless action, while men are not, what does it say for women's ability to make sound judgements and bear accountability as men do? Are we not as smart, prepared, and brave as them?
Here’s the more I promised. Menstruation is beginning to be recaptured by certain groups of feminists as the special gift that it is. You’re right, we can’t pretend that women are the same as men biologically because they’re not. Yet the gift of biological femininity has been cursed and spat on by a patriarchal society that hates the fact that this one thing is out of their power (I hope you don’t mind my saying that). As I mentioned before, I appreciate the fact you don’t downplay the downsides of pregnancy and pretend that every baby comes out in a puff of smoke. I personally consider it very important to encourage women to search out either medical, natural, or spiritual methods to overcome pain and discomfort in childbearing. We need to talk about it more, especially if we’re encouraging a woman to keep her baby. Feminine biology is much more spiritual than we realise and when we deny that, we do ourselves great harm. For the record I am tokophobic which seriously affects my views on childbearing. I find it both arousing (if painless but effort-filled) and terrifying (if painful). Here’s my story about struggling with tokophobia for years and finally beginning to recover from it: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/10/i-am-equal-not-same.html#comment-2309219176 So I thank you for your sympathy. I also recognise that many advocates for legal abortion want children of their own, and cherish their children. The only difference between them and us is that they see the extension of life as a gift from the mother which can be withdrawn at her will, and we see the extension of life as a gift from God which can only be withdrawn with the Higher Power’s consent. “I always come back, though, both to the fact that I knew this going into it and accepted the risk, and that my own diligent and exacting birth control/sexual refusal practices meant I really did choose my own risk. Eyes wide open.” I must respectfully disagree. I take the pro-“choice” view that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy very seriously, because unborn persons are gifts from God rather than punishments for having sex whilst in possession of a uterus, and stating the traditional pro-life view on the issue seems to lessen the worth of unborn persons, because it emphasises that what the couple did was a mistake; unborn people are not mistakes but opportunities for spiritual growth and life. However, I also realise that I have a responsibility to all humans (especially life I created) to cherish and love them, and protect their right to live, so on that level I can empathise with the responsibility argument. I would not blame myself if ever I became pregnant outside of marriage. I would see it as an opportunity, a gift from God, a way to fulfil childbearing desires, a way to bless either myself or someone else reliable who wants to raise the child. I would not have an abortion, and would strongly discourage anyone else from doing so because the moral repercussions of such an act are serious with long-lasting consequences. So what you say, with respect, reads to me like self-blame. You have nothing to reproach yourself wherewith, and you would not deserve to die just because you took a “risk” to have sex, even with stringent BC and sexual refusal practices. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you but I take the view that women’s lives are very important and they shouldn’t be downplayed because of a “mistake”. Again, on rereading, it seems as if you did your best to be careful if you didn’t want to be pregnant but accepted the fact it could happen. “I worry about the infantilisation present in (at least my own country's) abortion laws. When women are given a free pass for reckless or thoughtless action, while men are not, what does it say for women's ability to make sound judgements and bear accountability as men do? Are we not as smart, prepared, and brave as them?” Would you mind stretching my mind a little more by expounding exactly on what you mean by infantilisation in general, plus infantilisation in your own country, because I have heard the opposite view for a while. It is that women do not bear the same risk as men, but a far greater one, because their lives are on the line every time they get pregnant. Therefore, to state that financial support is the same equally as pregnancy is downplaying the female contribution. I have to agree yet am very open to hearing a different opinion. I think women get a free pass on pregnancy, due to biology, a lot of the time. Whereas men have to pay a lot of money which won’t impact their health or lives at all, although it will impact their pocketbooks a lot. Which is why they push women to get abortions, I think. I believe I begin to see your reasoning. Due to the unfair burden placed on men to pay child support and take responsibility for their actions, men in turn pressure women to take the free road out (the abortion) so they do not have the unfair burden placed on them. Although quite a few advocates for legal abortion will insist loud and clear that men should not have to pay child support if they don’t want to. I think in a way you could be onto something here. Giving men more responsibility does place them in a headship position over us rather, doesn’t it? So therefore, they can command us to have an abortion so we can be available to them twenty-four-seven, and also so they don’t have to pay financially, correct? If you’re right, isn’t that making us into sex toys in the sense of conforming our bodies to what they want rather than being ourselves? Although advocates for legal abortion will insist that abortion is something that sets women free in every way – sexually, financially, etc. Due to the current way society views fertility as being in the man’s domain and not the woman’s, and also due to the fact that contraception, sterilisation, and abortion have decreased the fear of pregnancy, I can understand their reasoning as well. I am for contraception and voluntary sterilisation due to the fact that they grant women this well-deserved freedom from the fear of pregnancy, as no woman should be open to life except through her own volition, YET I cannot call the practice of denying an unborn person his/her life anything short of abominable.
I've read this over carefully, and even where we disagree I don't think your reasoning is specious, merely different. I believe much of our difference comes from a spiritual divergence; for me, God plays no part in birth, abortion or womanhood. For me, it is a very practical, biological framework. Tokophobia can be crippling (one of my dear friends has it, and it made Nursing very difficult at times for her). I'm impressed you recognise and own it. The line between self-blame and self-accountability can be small (illustrated best in rape culture arguments). For me, it's more of a neutral, observational standpoint. If I play hockey without a helmet and get my teeth knocked out, is it the fault of the other player or did I take an assumed risk? I don't apply emotional burden on the idea of "mistakes" or errors or even bad choices; they are what they are. When women are granted reprieve that men are not, it means they are held to a lower standard of personal responsibility. This essentially puts women in the "child" class, hence infantilisation, and is exactly the train of thought that kept women from having the same freedoms (education, dress, driving, voting) for so long, and put "hysteria" as a commitable mental illness. Men are accountable from the second their sweat dries. Women are not, unless they choose to be so. That is a terrifying imbalance of power, to me, especially in light of paternity fraud and the fact that some men feel the loss of the unborn just as acutely as women who miscarry. The law has made me an unwilling and potentially capricious tyrant -- again, a child holding a loaded gun who will face no punishment if I squeeze. Where I live, abortion is unrestricted. This means fully viable babies may be terminated at will, for free. The lack of financial requirement results in even more of a "free pass", and multiple abortions are common.
I'll write up more on your thoughts later, but please let PJ4, her friend Infadelicious, and Shifty, know they have to comment at Secular Pro-Life Perspectives if they want to see me again. Also, since I think you might not come back, that's where I'll be if you want to chat again.
Kindly, Crystal, I don't message run (self preservation primarily). The Upvote Gang is not nearly so deliberate as to have Moriarty's spiderweb network. :) However, if they (PJ4, Infa, Shifty) read this they will know. I've enjoyed our correspondence in a remarkably non-trolly way, and I'm sure we'll cross paths again.
http://blog.secularprolife.org/ That's another prolife website I write my comments up at. They're looser than this one in what they'll allow and what they won't. Shall we carry our conversation there? It was getting very interesting and I don't want to miss your further contributions, LOL :)
Thanks for responding back with civility, Javelina. I appreciate your bluntness. As for menstruation, it is treated as dirty and secret, rather than as the following:
1) an important part of being a woman 2) the quintessence of female sexuality 3) a spiritual, mind-opening experience where a woman finds she is more logical, more emotional, more intuitive, more spiritual, more everything good I am at present on my own menstrual journey. I have experienced both painless menarche and agonising periods where I had to spend the day in bed, but am getting back up on the scale, and working hard towards painlessness. A couple articles that have helped me are things like this, as they helped me to try to value menstruation again: http://jarm.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/jarm/article/download/18049/16812 http://www.academia.edu/3684332/The_Value_of_Menstruation_Positive_Meanings_of_the_Female_Lived-Body_Experience I wrote up a long comment about why abortion is so damaging to society from a spiritual perspective as well; I hope you can read it sometime, and I reference Sharon Maloney, PhD's work as well: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/12/what-creates-babies-sex-or-choices.html#comment-2404203985 Also women can reduce or even overcome negative PMS. One reason negative PMS affects performance so much is that society doesn't attend to women's needs. Also, in the West, we use a lot of contaminants; I deal with that a little in these comments: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/friendlyatheist1/nine_dead_in_charleston_church_shooting/#comment-2404526780 https://disqus.com/home/discussion/friendlyatheist1/nine_dead_in_charleston_church_shooting/#comment-2401058416 The thing is, unborn persons will be affected by their environment, and if we don't keep women healthy for their own sakes, they will definitely have a more difficult time having children as well as being a woman during certain times of the month. So women's talk is essential to caring for pregnant persons, and far more tied into prolife causes than we think. Thanks for not downplaying the difficulties of pregnancy. So many prolifers do it and it's not good. Very interesting perspective on abortion weakening and infantilising women too. I'll write up more on your thoughts later, but please let PJ4, her friend Infadelicious, and Shifty, know they have to comment at Secular Pro-Life Perspectives if they want to see me again.
Agreed to the first. Living a cowardly life among them. No double standard in pusillanimity; I am referring to you directly, not all those who espouse similar views. If we want to ripple out, my goal is equity; can a man terminate his lover's pregnancy with ease, unconstrained by law, because he contributed 50% genetic material? Does he own that foetus? Finally, no class, gender, colour or creed is "Sovereign" in a Democracy.
Grass Valley Edius Pro 2023 Break presents a comprehensive, lustful, and user-friendly image manipulation toolset. It is well-equipped to collect newfangled standards, supporting nearly all non-professional formats. Users have the alternative to try out out the премиум features before deciding to upgrade in behalf of the entire experience. In this Pro construction, Stoolie Valley has included numerous chief features in its latest update, ensuring your videos receive a experienced finish. Entr'acte assured, these features bear been designed beside a company with nationwide encounter and know-how in the field.
[url=https://hashnode.com/@cracksoft452]
crack rocksteady [/url]
Well, I'd like to apply the same standard, but how many times has a conservative group been attacked? You have that 1 guy you give as an example. And?
OK, how about PUBLICLY proclaiming conservatives to be killed? ... crickets?
Oh, there must be an example similar to Christian preachers who were overjoyed that gays got gunned down in Orlando (Rodrigo Jimenez, Pastor Anderson), or who called for governmental extermination of gays (Pastor Anderson) or who called for gays to be put on a desert island to die (Pastor Worley), or who travelled to Africa to help write the "Kill the Gays" legislation (Pastor Lively) or who .... well, you get the idea.
Countless bombings of clinics, harassment of doctors and patients, shootings. So how many times has a Christian-run equivalent been bombed or shot up?
I'd like to apply the same standard, but there just hasn't been any cases to apply it to.
And certainly one shouldn't cheer protesters getting run over, no matter how much they harass you, as you have told me that there are protesters who do indeed harass in another thread. But I don't see pro-choice leaders actually calling for violence in the way that there are some that do on the pro-life side.
And of course, Mr. MinorityStress up above does a tremendous job in wishing me death because he thinks I'm gay. Sad to say, this is not the first time I've seen the Godly pro-life types say something like this, and probably one of the main reasons I'm having a hard time dissociating pro-life from homophobic, Christian bigotry.
BTW, I'm not blaming the guy who shot-up a PP clinic (yet again) on you guys, even though he was mumbling something about baby parts, the new buzzword in your circle that seems to persist despite 20 or so states having investigated and found nothing to substantiate the claims. He was probably crazy, and this just pushed him over the edge. Of course, it seems pretty clear that had not fake videos been put out, this wouldn't have happened, but no, its not your fault at all.
And yeah, I am very sorry for the homophobia. however, I have a hard time distinguishing pro-choicers from ableist bigotry. After all, your side is currently exploiting ableist prejudice about people with microcephaly to legalize abortion in other countries and to legalize late term abortion in certain US states. Even disabled pro-choicers have called out this disgusting use of prejudice. The fact that you seem not to care that ableism is present throughout the medical community, and affects our right to life, not only before birth but after as well, and that so many "pro-choice" doctors pressure parents to abort for fetal abnormalities that entire support groups are filled up with parents dealing with it, shows me the true depth of your character.
And you may not be aware, but there is still a federal house investigation of the PP tapes. And both the PP and the Alliance Defending Freedom paid for forensic analyses showed no evidence of video manipulation. ADF report found no substantial evidence of any manipulation. http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9764
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/planned-parenthood-undercover-videos-report-finds-manipulation-121800.html
your side
I'm not necessarily a pro-choicer in the US mold. I go more the way of Europe and Japan, and think that the procedure should be restricted, and there should be no late-term abortions unless medically necessary.
I'm just saying stop complaining about the possibility that you yourself will now be on the receiving end of the same protests that you're gladly taking part in now.
turned into riots
And white college students riot, oh I'm sorry "party", when their school football team loses, turning over cop cars and setting shit on fire. White people being unruly == "party" or "boys will be boys". Black people being unruly == "riot by thugs".
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-latest-kentucky-riot-is-part-of-a-long-destructive-sports-tradition/
But I digress. BLM is irrelevant to this discussion, even though now even Donald Trump is saying he's "Troubled" by the recent Tulsa shooting. I'm saying stop making yourself out to be a victim of the very protest that you're currently a part of. It sounds dumb.
The analogy isn't BLM protesting. Rather, its a BLM protester who was out protesting the night before, going the next morning to catch the bus, finding the roads closed because of the burned out cars and such, and complaining about the state of his/her city. I'm not saying pro-lifers don't have a right to protest (though going up to individuals and screaming at them doesn't really seem like protest, but I digress again). Protest and partake in your hobby all you want. I'm saying then complaining about the state of affairs your protests have brought about, that these clinics aren't safe because you'll get harassed.... um, I shed crocodile tears.
You assume that i don't support BLM. I do. I also support their right to protest. And if a peaceful BLM protester complains about the burned down buildings in his neighborhood because of the riots, he has every right to, because he was peacefully protesting an injustice, not burning down those buildings. He has every right to decry rioting while promoting peaceful protest of police brutality. And he shouldn't be told to stop his peaceful protests because others might escalate the situation into a riot, since the alternative is ignoring blatant injustice.
I must respectfully disagree with you. I have had an email correspondence of sorts with this guy, and he's the total opposite of what you said. He nearly always responds to his emails (unlike most of us!), and acknowledges people. He's treated me with nothing but kindness and I would be honoured to make his further acquaintance if ever I get the chance.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/12/the-word-is-rape.html
Scroll down the Newest button on that article and look at what he did to me. He screwed with my mind, Josh.
Then he tried pulling this same crp on me on this page:
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/12/donald-trump-is-disaster-waiting-to.html
If it hadn't been for two very good friends going to bat for me I would have been emotionally devastated. I've taken your advice; we haven't exchanged *a word since that incident.
Also, even before that, he was making inappropriate comments to me on YOUR website, saying things like "I wouldn't want to procreate with you" and casting doubt on some of my words. How would you react if I told you I didn't want to procreate with you?
You're lucky he didn't try screwing with your mind the way he did with me, and I think he did it because I am PL.
Legally speaking, abortion isn't murder. But it should be made illegal so that unborn persons are protected.
Morally speaking, however, it IS and I have no problem saying that without apology; I have gotten into trouble for this on more than one occasion. I'm not sorry for that.
This is what I said once, and it earned me brownie points for intolerance:
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/friendlyatheist1/if_the_gop_defunded_planned_parenthood_this_is_how_americans_would_suffer/#comment-2203901557
My point is that I try to remember this: Loving, truthful people are almost always more persuasive than unloving, truthful people. I would rather turn people away from belief in abortion than ridicule them for it. Sometimes, people believe in abortion because they have heard no other way and it's my job to let them know, there is another way. How am I going to communicate that if I am hostile to the people? The action, however, deserves righteous anger; I agree with you there and I admire your desire to speak out on behalf of the unborn. I hope this helps you understand better where I am coming from. I have no desire to compromise on the topic but rather to reach people with the truth and challenge them to think, and the best way to do that is to be respectful.
That being said, in a way I agree with you. The PL movement has made a shoddy job of things and it's time we manned up and spoke about the action in the strongest of terms.
Does this look like a baby to you?
That's why I'm not pro-life because I get warm, fuzzy feelings when I look at an embryo. I don't. I'm pro-life because one of the strongest beliefs I have is that all human adults should have an equal right to life, and when I try to make sense of that view, I come to believe that it must be because we all have something in common, something that we have equally.
Most pro-choice people I talk to think that thing is something like sentience, self-awareness, viability, or something similar. The problem with all of the pro-choice definitions I've heard is they either would give the equal right to life to lower mammals like squirrels, and/or they would exclude newborns from having an equal right to life.
I think having the intrinsic ability to think and act morally is the thing that ACTUALLY makes us equal. But that's a rational view, not an emotional one.
I'm very cautious to label anything with "intrinsic value" because value is highly situational. Just as an example of that, were I to have a choice between being marooned away from civilization with a) the Hope Diamond, or b) a magnifying glass, I would find the magnifying glass to be of much greater value than the gemstone. Priceless items in such a situation quickly become "just another pebble."
Adult women are of more value than any hundred fetuses, and that's just how it is.
You can certainly argue that that intrinsic ability is NOT something that matters morally, but arguing that not everybody has that intrinsic ability seems to me to be a losing argument.
Your paragraph about intrinsic value is confusing to me, because you say that value is situational, and then describe the case where two items have different instrumental value depending on the situation. So we certainly agree about the thought experiment you made, but it's not about intrinsic value. Intrinsic value is the idea that something has value because of the kind of thing it is. Instrumental value is when something has value because somebody else values it, like dollar bills, or a magnifying glass.
So when you assert that "adult women are more valuable than any hundred fetuses," I would ask you what you mean by "value." Presumably you mean "instrumental value," because it doesn't look like you meant "intrinsic value" in anything you said. I would agree that an adult woman has more instrumental value than any hundred fetuses. I would however argue that all people have equal intrinsic value, because people are things with serious moral status.
I think most likely the main area where we disagree is I think a human fetus is a person, and you don't. I'm glad to discuss that. I know that fetuses are not clear cases of persons for many people.
I'm open to the argument that some people are more intrinsically valuable than others, but it'll be pretty hard to convince me, because one of the strongest views I have is that all people are equally intrinsically valuable.
*Enjoying the discussion, but forgive me if I don't respond quickly in the next few weeks. We're about to leave for two trips, and won't be able to access my computer very much during them. :)
A huge part of the debate hinges upon that question. I'm more interested in arguments for a view versus merely asserting a view.
My argument that both have the same intrinsic value is that I don't think we can make sense of human equality in a way that makes sense without excluding the unborn. I want to know WHY all humans should have an equal right to life EXCEPT for the unborn, in a way that's not ad hoc. Every attempt I've seen by pro-choice people to define personhood as something like sentience or self-awareness or viability has at least one of two problems: they either give an equal right to life to lower mammals like squirrels, or they exclude obvious cases of persons like newborns.
Again, I want to hear your argument for why the unborn aren't persons, but simply asserting that women are more valuable isn't enough.
"And seriously, how much 'naturally ordered ability to think and act morally' does your 18 month old have?"
You misquoted me. I said, "I believe that all humans, because of the kind of thing they are, are naturally ordered toward developing the ability to think and act morally, and that is what matters."
The way you quoted me changes what we're talking about from an intrinsic ability to an immediate ability. It's worse than a strawman. It's literally quoting me as if I'm saying the OPPOSITE of what I'm saying.
I believe all humans, including fetuses, because of the kind of thing they are, are naturally ordered towards developing the ability to think and act morally, thus they have the intrinsic ability as soon as they are their own organism.
"The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated" - Mahatma Ghandi
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mahatmagan150700.html
The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mahatmagan150700.html
The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mahatmagan150700.html
The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
Mahatma Gandhi
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mahatmagan150700.html
The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
Mahatma Gandhi
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mahatmagan150700.html
I'd like to know why YOU think a fetus possesses a right you don't have, to wit, the right to take what you need to live from the body of another? Nobody has that right. Not you, not me, and not my born children. And before they were born, they had no such "right" either.
That's the crux of the issue. Answer the following question:
My body belongs to________.
a) You.
b) The state.
c) The church.
d) Anyone and everyone who "needs it."
e) Me.
Answer, using yourself, and you will have your answer.
My body belongs to me, but that doesn't give me the right to directly kill people with my body.
I don't think a mother is intrinsically obligated to carry her child up until birth. I know that sounds weird, but stay with me. If we could Star Trek beam the baby into an artificial womb that it could survive in, I'm fine with that. The problem is that the only alternative to her carrying her child until birth is intentionally destroying her child. Given our current technology, she has to carry the child but it's because of the alternatives. She cannot kill the unborn child. She cannot kill a born child who wants her kidney, though she can deny the kidney. She can unplug from the violinist, she may not take a machete to him.
I notice that you haven't responded to any of my arguments regarding human equality.
Abortion is more on point with unplugging the violinist. He will die. But he never had the right to use her body to sustain his life to begin with. That requires continuing consent.
I haven't addressed human equality, because it's irrelevant. We all EQUALLY have no right to level a claim to the body of another. How's that?
Only one problem here that derails the whole argument. The author and his brother implicitly acknowledge that there ARE circumstances where killing abortion practitioners are not only necessary, but morally justified (which is an inevitable conclusion given the language we use to describe abortion). They even lay out the circumstances necessary (a despotic nation, a state of war, when all alternatives have failed).
Here's the problem. Right wing politicians and demagogues are stating exactly that. That Obama is a terrorist or a muslim extremist, that at the end of his term he's going to usurp control of the government, that he's a manchurian candidate in league with muslim radicals...The language the Pro Life movement uses the language of war and implied despotism (holocaust, state sanctioned mass murder, etc.) You've got politicians, TV personalities, and Pastors stating that this is 'The End Times,' that we must take action now, that the great battle between good and evil is at hand.
So on the one hand you have a movement implying that drastic action is only acceptable in specific circumstances, and on the other you have TV personalities, religious leaders, and politicians all using language and imagery designed to stoke the imaginations of this specific audience into believing that those very circumstances are at hand.
Necessary conditions: a despotic nation, a state of war, when all alternatives have failed.
Sufficient conditions: [none stated]
Definitely insufficient: Some street preacher with a cardboard sign saying the world is about to end, or a talk radio host calling the U.S. president a Muslim terrorist.
I can't take your comment seriously.
Ironic. I'm not the one blaming a lunatic's violent actions on a peaceful social movement.
"You have said that violence was (or would have been, if Dear in fact
became violent for that reason) a completely unreasonable response to
PP's being denounced as criminal. So apparently you would argue that
even having falsely branded PP as criminal (when it was not) would not
make the CMP culpable -- because even if PP is criminal, violence would
be a completely unreasonable response. Have I understood you correctly?"
Two weeks later, this occurs to me: I think that a person has some culpability even for an unreasonable response to what they said, if what they said was a lie that increased the chance (however small the chance might be) of the response that took place.
Probably the laws of some countries would agree with this.
Another witness . . . heard a man. . . . The man was saying something to the
effect of, “The police shot my friend and his hands were up.” The
witness said that “quickly became the narrative on the street, and . . .
people used it both as an excuse to riot and to create a ‘block party’
atmosphere.”
What does "it" refer to? Did people find an excuse to riot because of the
mere existence of the narrative, or because they sincerely believed the
narrative? Anyway, though the article doesn't mention Black Lives Matter itself, I don't think that Black Lives Matter itself was on the scene at that moment in Ferguson.
The article also says, it is important for us to note that the initial “Hands up, don’t shoot” chant after Brown’s shooting has evolved into a message that is no
longer connected solely to the Ferguson event. A series of other fatal
shootings by police occurred following Brown’s death, and the “Hands up,
don’t shoot” came to symbolize the need to hold law enforcement
accountable
If the use of the slogan cannot reasonably be expected to dupe anyone into believing that Brown actually had his hands up, then I don't think those who use the slogan are responsible for what anyone hearing it does. But if it may well dupe people, and if those who use it know that Brown didn't likely have his hands up, and if someone is motivated by being so duped to do something violent, then clearly those who used the slogan helped cause the violence -- maybe they only helped slightly, but they helped -- and did so knowing they were lying. I think the lying makes them partially responsible. Whether we use the word "blame" would depend on whether we think that the violence was definitely a bad thing in the greater scheme of things, and think that that bad was not offset by some greater good that would justify it.
"I suspect the anti-abortion agenda of the PLM is a ruse for a hidden covert patriarchy objective ... as suggested by their refusal to reallocate their focus and resources on birth-control during Realities 1, addressing the risks females experience during Realities 2, and addressing the sober harsh realities non-wealthy females and children do and would experience in Realities 3."
Agreed and disagreed.
I agree in the way that the PL movement is generally run by abstinence-only, conservative-minded Christian people. I find their sex ethics generally shocking, to be frank. Also, what you say makes sense in this way: making all children be born into a world that will not value their existence once they are born is not a good thing. I simply don't think the solution to this is abortion. What I do believe is that the solution lies at least partially in addressing the issues you stated, and I quote:
"1. Pre-Conception-Realities - Poverty/Other ISMs
2. Pregnancy Risk Realities - Female Autonomy
3. Post-Birth-Realities - Poverty/Other ISMs"
To be honest, I doubt that some of the PL leaders even care for unborn persons. Their incremental laws disgust me for two reasons: they treat unborn persons as political pawns rather than persons in need of protection under the law, and they treat pregnant persons as political pawns rather than thinking, feeling people. Furthermore, the views of some of the RW individuals running things behind the scenes, such as theonomy, make me shudder. I might be a strict PLer but I can empathise with the emotional insecurity a woman feels when she has no way of controlling her reproductive output on her own terms. I have felt the sick, cold feeling in the pit of my stomach, in my daydreams, as I have imagined what being a married woman with no recourse to prevent pregnancy via contraception must be like. To top it all off with fear of pregnancy and childbirth - ugh. So I despise these politicians and leaders because they make matters worse.
I disagree in the sense that the PL movement is focused primarily on saving unborn persons, and that is a good focus to have. I do not think that focus should be shifted away from unborn persons, yet I believe that unborn persons should not be the only focus they have, as abortion is a banaid issue covering up a host of other issues - poverty, etc - as you mentioned. Keeping it focused only on illegalising unborn persons yields only one result - illegalisation - and not only addresses nothing in reality but can also be abused so that pregnant persons receive the short side of the stick. The fact that PLers haven't really thought through the implications of abuse of pregnant persons is highly troubling to me. Such laws might eliminate the taking of life legally (which is a good thing) but they won't answer the issues that cause women to get abortions, and this is wrong to me. I like to ask my fellow prolifers sometimes, if they are so keen to eliminate this morally unacceptable practice, why would you not want to understand the hows, whys, and wherefores of the action, and once you have the understanding, to eliminate the reasons for abortion so that women will not have the incentive to have abortions anymore.
I will write up more later. Again, I deeply appreciate your contributions!
I think Pew broke down the opinions of people who pray daily about abortion by race but, if I remember correctly, there were only 5 racial categories.
I appreciate your love for me. Please know I love you and your partner as well.
I hope that I have made it clear that I care about all people, not just unborn persons; that I care very much about post-birth guarantees for making the world a better place; and that I do not like the idea of ensuring unborn persons are born then left to die because society did not do its job by caring for them, ensuring they had a reasonable standard of living and educating them.
Regarding Roe v Wade, I have stated, on many occasions that I do not believe it will ever be overturned, and pro-life people are wasting their time trying to do so.
I try to stay on top of surveys and statistical information concerning people's opinions on abortion. Most polls indicate the vast number of people do not favor overturning Roe v Wade in its entirety.
They (Pew and Gallop) also, indicate the majority do not support the extreme positions of either; opposition to abortions regardless of any circumstances, and support for abortions under any/all circumstances.
Most people end up somewhere in the middle.
I think the available data is clear about two things. The first is that most people have moral reservations about abortion. They and believe there must be some sort of justification or rationale for such an action.
The second is that most people do not believe abortions should simply be illegal.
I found some data from a poll commissioned by the National Right to Life Committee that had a greater degree of detail than most. It also assured I couldn't be accused of a pro-abortion bias.
[http(colon)//www(dot)nationalrighttolifenews(dot)org/news/2013/04/new-poll-shows-pro-life-majority-on-abortion/#.VlAsbv9dFy0
I drew the following conclusions:
This poll showed only 11% are in favor of banning all abortions. The number who think it should be legal in all circumstance is almost the same at 12%. So, that correlates well with other poll data I've presented, so it appears to be very reasonable to say both represent extreme minority positions.
Only 30% see the stage of fetal development of the fetus as an exclusive criteria. 20% see three months (much like Roe v Wade's trimester plan) as a cut-off point for abortions for any reason. Only 10% support viability (six months) as the cut-off point.
More people (over 42%) see other circumstances as a criteria for allowing abortion. Only 14% see the life of the mother as the sole criteria for allowing, those who include rape and incest represent another 14%. The study asked one question about all three circumstances together which was 28% and then asked exclusively about the life of the mother.
I need to take a break, but I will be happy to take up the rest of your comments soon.
and institutional poverty, acknowledging overpopulation, developing
procreative abilities outside the female womb, and proactively promoting
and providing free or affordable access to all birth-control ...
excluding setting up their own abortions providers beyond those that
already exist."
I believe in partial reallocation of the funds rather than complete, and that is where we will have a difference. However I believe we agree on these other measures you mentioned - "reducing systematic and institutional poverty, acknowledging overpopulation, developing
procreative abilities outside the female womb, and proactively promoting
and providing free or affordable access to all birth-control".
"This sounds like you're suggesting the medical staff (or mother) LIE about needing the abortion."
No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply saying that in some cases, the doctor made a mistake and deemed it "life-of-the-mother" when that baby could have been saved. At the same time, I recognise that, for the present, the life that can be saved should be saved. Which sometimes means saving the mother even if that involves an abortion. I do, however, hope for a day that will employ technology to save both*.
"Also, I'm stunned that you would focus on society mobilizing and
allocating resources to make sure that fetus is born (regardless of what
you consider the "female incubators" wishes) into what real world
conditions ... that the same society does not currently mobilize and
allocate resources to guarantee a middle class or wealthy class LIFE."
I hope I can assure you that I *do not want to see a society that keeps people alive because they're not born yet, but does not care for them and simply leaves them in the slums to die after they're born; in my book that is as anti the prolife ethic as taking their lives before they are born. If I have given the impression that I care only for saving unborn persons to the exclusion of all else, I am sincerely saddened, because that is not what I want at all.
"You want society to find a way via criminalizing abortion, inventing
technology, and mobilizing and allocating resources to GUARANTEE THAT
BIRTH ... but remain silent about ANY POST-BIRTH GUARANTEES."
Well, actually, did I mention that there would have to be a lot to change in the post-birth world as well? If not, I should have. No, I'm not solely for replacement of abortion via high techs, nor solely for protecting unborn persons via legal means, although that is something I'm not ashamed of. I appreciate the fact you pointed this out, because, if this was going to work, a number of things would have to change or at least improve, as follows: 1) Adoption would need to be reformed. The adoption system, at the present time, is in a terrible mess. People who shouldn't be allowed to adopt children are, and that concerns me.
2) Social safety nets would have to be strengthened rather than taken away from women, because if women are going to keep their babies, then they will need help and support in that.
3) Contraceptives would have to be improved, strengthened, multiplied and freely available.
4) Sex education would also have to be freely available. But it would have to be a type that did not shame people for not fitting into cultural norms.
5) Altering our attitudes towards sex and pregnancy would have to be a must*. We would have to be far more accepting of solo motherhood than we are now. Also, women could no longer be seen as criminals for having sex whilst in possession of a uteri. Furthermore, no woman should have to ever, ever be afraid when she gets pregnant. She would need the security of knowing she can apply for nonjudgmental help, and that she would be aided, and the path to being a parent or adopting out would be made simple for her, rather than hard as it is now.
6) Combating the actual causes of abortion would be imperative also. If unborn persons have a right to life, so do born persons. As I mentioned, we would have to deal with poverty, domestic violence, rape culture, rape and incest, etc. Also we would have to channel our greatest services for free education, free healthcare, free help of all types, etc, into poor neighbourhoods, so that young people could have a chance to grow up without living in slums. Any woman who wants to escape an abusive relationship would have to know she could get a hotline. Also any woman who got pregnant would have to go to a healthcare center and have her options explained to her, without judgment. Last but not least we would have to believe rape victims and victims of incest rather than the perpetrators.
While I have my opinions I recognise that abortion is not just a moral issue by itself, but a bandaid on a host of other issues. Therefore, simply guaranteeing birth without guaranteeing born citizens are looked after is absurd and wrong because the bandaid would only be changed, not disregarded. In other words, if we dealt with the issues that caused abortion, we would be reducing abortions nearly half-way at least and that would be a good thing. You are correct in saying that if birth was to be guaranteed we would have to change post-birth conditions as well in order to ensure our future generations had a better world to grow up in. I hope I have made myself clear that I don't hold to the adage "If you're pre-birth, you're fine; if you're pre-school, you can go to hell as far as I'm concerned."
"Wow ... all pregnancies must be born no matter what reality going on with the "female incubators" and "post-birth" ..."
In regards to that, I mentioned the technology that would ensure that unborn persons got to live yet pregnant persons got to decide whether they wanted to carry or not, because I am not for women being made to carry a pregnancy if they don't wish to. I simply part ways with the legal abortion advocate crowd on the issue of abortion being the best method to achieve this bodily freedom.
"Heck, the GOP opposes our government allocating food stamps to already
born poor and low-income struggling human beings whom need to eat, plus a
whole scope of other life sustaining and empowering resources."
You know what? I *agree with you on this! I am very much for food stamps and other such social services going to poor people, and I have no problem paying my taxes to ensure that these people get fed.
"Our species doesn't even know what such a concept or reality looks like ... all human life and quality of life guaranteed."
That is a world I would like to see a reality, as I explained above.
"I'm sorry, but I have to opine ... the PLM is so misguided in how it
mobilizes and allocates its labor hours and millions of dollars in
resources ... all of which could be focused 100% on guaranteeing a
quality life for already alive human beings outside the womb ... and
yes, even those unborn fetus they demand be born by "female incubators"
worldwide."
I agree. They need to care for everyone. The problem is that they are run by this capitalist mindset that makes poor people into automatic criminals. As for me, I want my resources to help everyone - unborn and born alike. Not just one group of people, everyone. I hope we understand each other a little better now.
I deeply appreciate that you explained what you believe about the movement itself without attacking those who adhere to PL belief. It was a very thorough and thought-provoking critique, IMO. I don’t really have too much to say in response except that it is an area worth seriously researching and self-examining, more than I have. If you’re wrong, I will let you know. But if you’re right, I’ll let you know that too.
I don’t represent or belong to the PL movement but am rather an outlier, because it is run, at least in part, by conservative Christian people who believe in old-fashioned abstinence ideals that don’t help matters any. In my heart, I left it a while back (I was never officially part of it) because I questioned some of their legislative methods and could see their laws generally (not always, but generally) weren’t helping. I’m still PL in my heart and I’m
open to listening to both sides (prolife and advocate for legal abortion) of the topic so I can learn more about how to treat this sensitive issue. I have a lot to say about how I believe abortions can be reduced, and I want to talk about it more one day if you’re comfortable with that, but I will leave my thoughts for the present at this as I wish to focus on where we do share common ground: we agree that the causes of abortion – poverty, rape culture, domestic
violence, etc – should be dealt with or at least seriously reduced, plus both of us believe contraception should be promoted far and wide. IMO science and reason are the best way to handle this controversy in society, not bombs and death threats of abortion practitioners.
I am not a moderator here. However, I care about the fellow commenters not being banned or deleted, and deeply value their contributions, which is why I will send them comments letting them know if and when they’re stepping over a line. The reason I told you about people versus actions was that I did not want the mods censoring your comments.
Although I have no problem resuming discussion of this topic with you if you change your mind, I respect the fact you have no desire to discuss this for the present as I understand that discussing abortion is not for everyone. However, you have made me so happy for such a brief period of time that I strongly desire to talk about topics we do agree on when we both feel comfortable
doing so, if that is all right with you. Would you mind if we move our
conversation over to Love Joy Feminism where we can keep discussing that rape culture article that you commented on yesterday, because it would mean so much to me if you could do that for me and also because I find you to have a very insightful perspective on many topics. Also if you want to drop by on The
Friendly Atheist (which is not prolife BTW) I will be happy to talk when I see you :)
this point; I left a comment at this article and could you respond to it as it's not about prolife:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/12/can-we-talk-about-those-faux-victorians.html#comment-2410200298
Also there's another comment I would appreciate your thoughts on at this address, if that's okay, as this is from the article about rape culture you read last night:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/12/the-word-is-rape.html#comment-2410203572
I think it fair to state that I apologise for misunderstanding your intentions. It seemed to me, at the time, that the comment about jihad was completely unrelated to the issue at hand, namely, anti-abortion terrorism. I appreciate
your explaining your intentions as to why you made that particular comment; now I understand a little better where you are coming from and this is very helpful in that it puts your comments in context.
"I thought the unspoken issue raised in the PLM article was whether people identifying with the politics of PLM should be viewed as potential Domestic Terrorist?
This ISSUE speaks to all people whom identify with the politics of other groups and whether they too can be defined as potential DTs."
AFAIK you were correct to judge that that was the topic the article was discussing. This is the intention of the article, and I quote:
"Many pro-choice people have responded to the recent shooting by blaming pro-life advocates. In this article I show why such claims are completely unjustified by analyzing culpability and what it means to incite violence."
"In other words C ... this article is a political polemic ... not legal analysis ... about whether a Mass Murder whom identifies with and articulates PLM politics is a Domestic Terrorist."
No, it isn't a legal analysis. But it's not about whether a mass murderer who identifies with and articulates PLM politics is a domestic terrorist either. I'm pretty sure the author of this article would recognise him as a domestic terrorist or a murderer at the very least. It's an article written by a
prolifer who recognises that anti-abortion terrorism is a problem, and is seeking to explain why most prolifers are not responsible for one man's actions. Yet it's also explaining how a person could incite violence through their words so that they can avoid falling into that trap when they honestly
critique the abortion issue.
"In other words, if we "compartmentalized" our analysis (online and offline) ... don't conduct "comparative analysis" of politically motivated murders ... then we fail to identify and deconstruct the common patterns of "hate" and "dogma" all potential DTs share ... whether it's specifically PL mass-murders, School mass-murders, Jihadist mass-murders, Gang mass-murders, etc ... notwithstanding our federal government has official definitions of domestic terrorism."
Since seeking to analyse the commonalities between different types of mass murderers seemed to be your intentions when you commented and called the PL movement a terrorist organisation, I actually appreciate the critique because I think it is good to hear a dissenting voice.
"The same polemic could be written by any political group ... including DAESH ... regarding any person identifying with and articulating their politks."
I can agree with that because it's true.
"But if you don't see these common patterns comparatively between all these mass-murders, then I'll respect the articles' online compartmentalization ... although offline that's not how reality works."
Well, would you mind explaining the common patterns comparatively between the mass-murders of PL and jihad, because I have no problem having that conversation with you at all.
"I can 100% guarantee you "compartmentalization" isn't how our NSA, CIA, FBI, and ATF intelligence analysts view these mass murders. To the contrary they're looking for "common patterns" of "ideological and political dogma"."
Oh, okay. Fair enough.
Let's see here: there is surely a difference between criticising an ideology and hating people who believe that ideology, yes? Please remember that when you critique, because the prolifers I know are good people who would never want to terrorise any abortion practitioner. Yet I admit that there are some who wish to employ these kinds of tactics on abortion practitioners and it is not helpful. I am open to hearing evidence on either side either for or against the idea that the
PL movement generally supports terrorism, although, so far as I know, it doesn't. So if you have genuine evidence and can prove it I will at least look at it.
In other words, seeking to accuse prolife people, out the gate, of holding terrorist notions or ideas won't help, and the moderators will not appreciate condemnation of people*. However, a thoughtful analysis of why you believe the
PL *movement supports domestic terrorism would contribute greatly to the content of this forum as that is very much part of the subject that the moderators want everyone to discuss, AFAIK.
Last but not least you were far more on-topic than I realised so thanks for clearing up the confusion. I have no problem resuming this conversation if you are so inclined. So thanks for your contributions!
Unless you can say the same about jihadists, stop insulting victims of radical Islam by suggesting the two are even remotely similar.
Try again.
http://www.newhealthguide.org/When-Does-A-Baby-Have-A-Heartbeat.html
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302
FYI: Don't feel bad. Common pro-life confusion, and a lot of sources are vague about which they're using. Most sources use LMP.
Cardiac cells will beat in a petri dish with electrical stimulation. If there are a group of them, they beat in unison, because that's what they do. No one is obligated to preserve beating cardiac cells, regardless of location.
In fact, it's a delivery after 20 weeks, even if the fetus won't make it. Which brings up another misconception about "abortion." "The day before delivery", "the month before delivery", "8 1/2 months" or any other false situations anyone might lay out, abortion is not EVEN possible. At that point, it's a delivery, even of a dead fetus. NOT an abortion.
I proved my claim by providing a source from a medical journal. Since you currently claiming that the termination of a pregnancy by medical or surgical means after a certain stage of the pregnancy is considered a delivery rather than an abortion, could you please do likewise and provide a similar type of medical source supporting that claim?
Regarding the medical source I provided supporting my claim, it was in response to:
"Wrong. And NO "the majority of doctors" do NOT go with "conception. I'M not even sure ANY of them do. ."
The actual data showed that twice as many doctors go with conception as implantation.
That was part of a reply I made to you 2 days ago. Here it is in its entirety.
"An incarcerated person loses freedom of movement, which is a type of autonomy. He doesn't lose bodily autonomy. In particular, a female convict is not forced to carry a pregnancy."
You are simple playing word games. But, that's fine lets look at it semantically: i.e., based on the meanings of the words:
Autonomy is simply an individual’s capacity for self-determination or self-governance. Bodily simply means of or concerning the body.
Bodily autonomy is therefore simply an individual's ability (synonym for capacity) to determination or govern their own body.
You admit that "An incarcerated person loses freedom of movement, which is a type of autonomy." So I would ask they lose the freedom of movement of what? The only logical response is their body, of course.
So, based on semantics; i.e., the meanings of the words involved, it is simply incorrect to say he doesn't lose bodily autonomy.
Conceptually, bodily autonomy is not limited to the reproductive aspect of the body. So, the fact that "a female convict is not forced to carry a pregnancy" may be true, it does nothing to negate the fact that controlling a convicts freedom of movement also results in a loss of their bodily autonomy.
"Wrong. And NO "the majority of doctors" do NOT go with "conception. I'M not even sure ANY of them do. ."
You need to read something other than whatever propaganda you have been reading and be better informed, and less dogmatic, with your assertions.
Implantation is not the consensus of the OB GYN's in the country and repeating negatives and using caps does not change that. In fact, implantation is the minority view.
A study of "Obstetrician-gynecologists' beliefs about when pregnancy begins" was published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology -- February 2012, Volume 206, Issue 2, Pages 132.e1–132.e7. it stated:
One-half of US obstetrician-gynecologists (57%) believe pregnancy begins at conception. Fewer (28%) believe it begins at implantation, and 16% are not sure.
"This is simply NO. Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope. Rights are not subjected to the whims of others. That would be mob rule. We DO have a Constitution, you know. The rights of everyone are protected from tyranny of the majority.
More repetition and caps. I have pretty well lost hope in a civil intelligent conversation with you, at this point, I'm glad this is almost over.
Your original comment was:
"People are free to believe as they wish, but that has zero impact on the rights of another."
How do you think rights are determined? For example you mentioned the constitution. Were the men who wrote the constitution not people who believed what they wished to believe, defied a king, and had a huge impact on the rights of a whole lot of "anothers". The rights of everyone are protected from tyranny of the majority as a direct result of their beliefs.
Have you ever read the Federalist Papers. It was a series of papers arguing for the ratification of the United States Constitution. No. 10 is an essay written by James Madison under the pseudonym Publius (under which all of The Federalist Papers were published),
Federalist No. 10 is among the most highly regarded of all American political writings. It addresses the question of how to guard against "factions", or groups of citizens, with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community. Madison argued that a strong, united republic would be better able to guard against those dangers than would smaller republics—for instance, the individual states. Opponents of the Constitution offered counterarguments to his position, which were substantially derived from the commentary of Montesquieu on this subject.
So the fact that rights are not subjected to the whims of others and that the rights of everyone are protected from tyranny of the majority are the results of the beliefs of people like Madison which had and do still have considerable impact.
As far as the federalist papers? Those are not law. They can tell us something about what the founding fathers were thinking when they drafted the Constitution, and I agree that the notion of protecting minority rights from the tyranny of the majority originated there. The time of the founding fathers has come and gone, and the Constitution must be interpreted according to life in 2015, not in the late 18th century when it was written. Otherwise, it just isn't worth much. For example, they thought only white male landowners should vote. In today's society, such an idea would be laughed out of court.
Today we have the 14th amendment that clarifies everything. No state or federal government may deny any person equal protection under the law, and defines exactly who is a citizen. Anyone born inside the United States or naturalized therein. No federalist papers are needed to clarify that. Therefore, the rights of a minority cannot be subjected to the whims of voters.
Now as to bodily autonomy. What type of autonomy is denied to prisoners? The autonomy that you and I enjoy to be located wherever we wish to be. They cannot leave.
That is NOT the same as loss of bodily autonomy. A prisoner cannot be drugged or treated medically against his will. He cannot be strapped down and forced to donate blood. He cannot be raped without it being a crime. He cannot be forced to eat. He cannot be forced into medical experimentation. He cannot be forcibly sterilized. And in the case of a female prisoner, she cannot be forced either to abort a pregnancy, nor to carry one to term. THAT is BODILY autonomy. Loss of bodily autonomy is not defined as the loss of freedom of movement. That would more accurately be called a loss of liberty than bodily autonomy. It's not a semantics game. Words mean what they mean. And even then, prisoners are not deprived of ALL liberty. They cannot, for instance, be forbidden to marry... even on death row.
Next, I would point out that your comment that I originally addressed was:
"Wrong. And NO "the majority of doctors" do NOT go with "conception. I'M not even sure ANY of them do. ."
That was factually incorrect and your lack of research was blatantly apparent. So rather than admit that you were wrong you build a straw man argument instead.
But, in doing so, you don't effectively knock your straw man argument down either. You offer no evidence from a credible source and instead present only your own opinions based on you remember from nursing school. You believe that should overrule the opinions of doctors who specialize and currently practice in that field
If you think about it, isn't the development of pregnancy actually counted from the first day of the woman’s last normal menstrual period (LMP), even though the development of the fetus does not begin until conception, which is about two weeks later, which assumes each menstrual cycle to be her body is preparing for pregnancy.?
Aren't you really just saying pregnancy begins at implantation simply because you prefer that definition because it better serves your argument? I have used that argument too, because I understand how effective IUDs are at preventing pregnancies and thus reduce abortions. But, I was wrong. It is not the consensus of doctors who practice in that field.
The next comment I addressed was:
"People are free to believe as they wish, but that has zero impact on the rights of another."
That is conceptually about the relationship between beliefs and rights and I addressed it on that basis. The Federalist papers were an example of the selling of a set of beliefs having an impact on the rights of others, in case it was Madison addressing the rights of the individual, which is the issue the raised. I could have used many other examples to illustrate beliefs that found themselves incorporated into the legal system that has a great impact on rights. You completely miss the point by attacking the examples rather than the concept itself.
Next you say:
"Now as to bodily autonomy. What type of autonomy is denied to prisoners? The autonomy that you and I enjoy to be located wherever we wish to be. They cannot leave.
That is NOT the same as loss of bodily autonomy."
Semantics is the study of words and their meanings. I have clearer defined the words "bodily" and "autonomy" using standard reference material for the English language and showed how when combined they can mean precisely that. Your comment: "That is NOT the same as loss of bodily autonomy." is simply incorrect based upon semantics.
The use of improper capitalization for emphasis doesn't change that and only accentuates the fact it is purely your opinion.
Are you not aware that ALL pregnancies terminate? Whether they terminate in birth (delivery) or abortion is a matter of stage. But since you evidently have a problem with this, tell me how YOU would term them?
Apparently, not:
Abortion - elective or therapeutic
Alternative names
Therapeutic abortion; Elective abortion
Definition
Elective or therapeutic abortion is the deliberate termination of a pregnancy.
http(colon)//medical-dictionary-search-engines(dot)com/encyclopedia/?encyclopedia_name_url=48&level=2
I would call it an abortion if it meets that criteria; i.e., it is intentional.
Do you have no reply to my other comments?
Abortion (medically) applies to the* premature* termination of pregnancy by natural or induced means, and has no relationship to the life status of the fetus. An abortion, natural or induced, will always result in fetal death, because the fetus is unviable. A delivery will usually, but not always, result in a living child.
Your response was completely inappropriate. You apparently couldn't argue factually, so instead, you (I suspect) feign personal hurt and outrage. You then "shoot the messenger".
At least you have dropped the pretense of objectivity and civility.
Can you read? I provided even provided a link. Did I make up a website too, just to prove I was right?
If "The intentional termination of pregnancy" is NOT the medical definition of abortion, please provide a link to a medical dictionary that proves otherwise and I would be happy to acquiesce on this.
It seems to take a lot less get you angry than people who lie to your face, just disagreeing with you seems a quite effective way to do it as well.
I not terribly impressed by what you were taught in nursing school. My wife attended a nursing school attached to the Mayo clinic. One of her teachers taught that a women could not get pregnant the first time she had sex. The quality and accuracy of the information is very depended on the person teaching it. Not all teachers are of the same caliber.
No, she was not taught that. They don't teach "old wive's tales" in nursing school. And you didn't supply any link. You went to http://web.md, not a medical dictionary.
However, I have found your continuing nasty and condescending (though consistently wrong) motivational. Consequentially, its worth the effort to find and present evidence, for no other reason than to embarrass you.
Here's how the Merc Manuals describe abortion:
"Induced abortion is the intentional ending of a pregnancy by surgery or drugs."
https(colon)//www(dot)merckmanuals(dot)com/home/women's-health-issues/family-planning/abortion
You are one very sick puppy little Shifty. Why don't you get a life?
Night :)
I wish your partner well, if that's all right. Because she sounds like a very smart woman from what you tell me :)
PS: Thanks for calling me a co-leader! Because one mark of a man of character is to recognise women as co-leaders :)
As I battle misogyny in my soul and in my body and in my environment, I will remember your words - guaranteed!
a superb LEADER ... it's not a binary males vs females or vice versa
... it's humans loving humans:)"
God, I agree 100%!
Personally, as I've stated before, I find men to be magnificent, strong, bright, brave leaders IF they are doing what is right and good and treating others with respect as well. Men have the inherent capacity to do so much good and to be so incredibly intelligent, but they have to earn respect through character and are not entitled to it simply because they are men*. If a man is good and trustworthy, stern yet gentle, wise yet open-minded, etc, I will trust and respect that man. But he has to prove himself to be good first, before I can even consider pledging my trust so completely. Please don't ever underestimate your intelligence and leadership skills, nor talk yourself down to put others up either, just because you happen to be a man.
To me, what is needed is not only to value the leadership of your own sex but also to value the leadership of the opposite sex - I mark a note that this is a great failing in society, that everyone brags about how great their sex is while putting the opposite sex down, or praises the opposite sex while downplaying the positive contributions of their own. This statement is not a criticism of either of us but rather an affirmation that our society seriously needs to change in this area, and, as we agreed so capitally, that men and women need to lead *together rather than fighting each other all the time.
As a leader, then, plus as a supporter, I support your decision to get off this forum and do what you must do. Many cheers go with you for the wonderful day you gave me, and I hope I made you happy too!
I'm sorry I was a little mad at you at the very beginning, but I'm glad I restrained myself and tried to understand where you were coming from, and no I didn't hate you either even then, and certainly don't now!
Thank you so very much for encouraging me to be a leader; and to think of myself as that; and for noticing, remarking on, and praising those qualities. I have never really been told I have the capacity to be a leader (except for once or at the most twice), only the capacity to be LED, partially because of my nature and partially because I am, in the eyes of others, a sweet young woman. I will try not to underestimate myself!
I have to go too; I've got RL (real life) to live. I appreciate the fact you want to check out those places and I hope to see you again soon so we can discuss loads of topics more - feminism, PL, racism, etc.
You have taught me a great deal today. I hope we can respectfully find common ground where we can, and disagree with compassion when we must. You've made me think a lot of noble thoughts about my sex and appreciate good men who support women all the more. If ever I get the right man I want someone who highly appreciates female leadership so thank you for bringing that to my attention.
I agree with and feel deeply inspired by your desire to see women lead. I also think that men are intelligent and strong, and make brilliant leaders as well; that doesn't mean I'm seeking to willfully misunderstand your beliefs about women's intelligence and leadership qualities; quite the contrary. I was raised traditional so I appreciate these good qualities in males, and there's a reason men and women should lead together - they need each other.
I will check out your link.
Time for bed for me too, sorry :*(
I knew we'd have a lot in common once we got past the rough stage :)
I don't feel threatened at all, nor do I sense you are flirting with me. You are talking to me like a person and that's great!
BTW, I couldn't flirt to save my life.
Do you mind if I gently encourage you to stop being a procrastinator? It is a hurtful habit, I know from sad experience :(
Honestly, I never thought of myself as a leader! In real life I am rather meek and compliant I'm afraid. But I know there's a tiger inside waiting to be unleashed if she's given the opportunity :)
I do not know how I managed to win you over like that. Can you tell me how I did it, if you wouldn't mind?
I persisted because I like people, and I think of what we can agree on far more than on what we disagree on. Finding common ground, especially on such a tough issue as abortion or anything else equally as controversial, is important to me because at that point we're viewing each other as enemies and we need to forget that we disagree and see each other's humanity.
Please, make Love Joy Feminism a new home if you feel comfortable with that. Also, check out Friendly Atheist. I post there a lot sometimes and I would love to run into you again because you are a very sharp, bright, intelligent man yourself. Yes, men are right on the ball! A female leader has to recognise that rather than pandering to the idea that men are dumb and women are smart, because that's nonsense.
Of course it is flesh-and-blood human beings. Why the spontaneous responses from so many Disqus owners?
You should have read his comments. I felt threatened, like I mentioned. I knew he couldn't touch me because of the computer screens, but I also knew he was a real person and his intentions towards me were less than honourable. You have to be very careful what you put up on the Internet, no kidding!
Aww, you're really laying it on thick; that's so sweet, thank you!
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/11/05/half-of-the-new-canadian-cabinet-members-chose-to-skip-so-help-me-god-in-their-oaths-of-office/#comment-2345535945
I felt guilty over that for a long time.
I don't think the agreement we have is perfunctory now, but rather sincere.
BTW: thank you :)
I do not believe in being dishonest about my identity, despite my desire for privacy. I'm not sure where I said you were Marxist, but thanks for clarifying.
"as you'll learn about the Italian scholar whom created the term and analytical framework"
Please tell me more. Who is this person?
"I'll do to the other article (website) ... what's your aka name there?"
It's Crystal there as well.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/12/the-word-is-rape.html
When I respond to your off-topic comments I will take my responses there and let you know I have done so. Thank you for agreeing to shift the conversation. I do not want your good thoughts deleted just because they weren't on-par with the theme of this blog.
realities of non-whites ... not to be misconstrued with all human
beings having input (voice) into the complexities of our species as
"human beings" ."
Can you please explain the difference between the two, as I'm a little mystified.
I've never really heard of the word "hegemony" before speaking with you, so I would say you taught me something new.
http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hegemony
"Hegemony is political or cultural dominance or authority over others. The hegemony of the popular kids over the other students means that they determine what is and is not cool."
Based on that definition, I can see totally what you mean - if indeed you are working by that definition. In other words, are you saying that people's choices, how they view themselves, and how they act, are influenced by the cultural and political hegemony around them?
PS: I hope you don't mind if I ask you to take this discussion to at least one of those web pages I mentioned, because we are getting off-topic and I want to respect the moderator's rules while enjoying our chat. If you're agreeable, we can take it to that article on nonconsensual sex you enjoyed so much.
it becomes a rationale for killing or murdering or oppressing people:)"
You're right; I should have taken note of that. I am spiritual but not religious myself.
I have read that article about Doug Wilson in the past. On seeing it referenced, I can identify with why you're agnostic and critical of white hegemony. I read portions of his Southern Slavery as it Was with disgust. The man obviously has serious problems with critical thinking skills as it relates to morality :(
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/12/the-word-is-rape.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/11/ttuac-ignore-your-childs-tears.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/07/doug-wilson-have-his-views-on-slavery-changed.html
If you want to you could put your opinion up on that and I'll find you and we can talk - if that's okay with you.
I especially loathe Doug Wilson.
"I won't lie, the symbolize 50s looking white female with her baby image
didn't resonate with me, for all kinds of cultural reasons ... including
why "WHITE" still the default "universality" for "human representation"
I share your deploring of white being the default state. I am white myself, yet in a way racism bothers me a lot more than sexism. White is not necessarily delightsome, the Book of Mormon be screwed. We need more non-white representations of models, protagonists in stories, etc. The white privilege - I find it bothersome.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/
It's very feminist-oriented, LOL. I learned a lot from her!
While I would not approach the issue the way he does, I appreciate the fact he told it like it is.
For instance, what do you think of this article:
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/12/what-creates-babies-sex-or-choices.html
As you yourself said, no right matters once your right to live is gone. I have tried and tried explaining this repeatedly but sometimes with little success.
Do you think it is accusing advocates of legal abortion of ethnic cleansing to assert such a thing? Because I don't. To me, it's just stating a moral principle.
Ironically I would consider myself a progressive person (in some ways). Yet I can see this sort of act runs afoul of all progressive values. We fight against ageism, for disability rights, yet we include abortion, euthanasia. Something's gotta give somewhere.
That statement seems ideological rather than factual:
According to Gallup, in 2012, following are the percentage, in descending order, of people who identify as pro life in each party:
Republicans - 72%
Independent - 47%
Democrats - 34%
The percentage of US adults who identified as pro-life was 50%
http(colon)//www(dot)gallup(dot)com/poll/154838/pro-choice-americans-record-low(dot)aspx
To put that 34% in perspective -- 70% of the US population is Christian, Evangelicals are 25% of the US population, that means Evangelicals are 36% of all Christians in the US.
Would you consider Evangelicals a tiny minority of Christians?
Again, unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand is the highest sacrament in liberal/progressive theology.
What you said was: "There are a few pro-life Democrats, but they're a tiny minority within an overwhelmingly pro-abortion party..."
I provided data, to show that was not true. I do not intend to play move the goalposts with you. If you do, please do likewise, and provide some data to support your contention.
"Again, unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand is the highest sacrament in liberal/progressive theology."
Again, purely ideological, in no way factual, and totally unimpressive intellectually. The fact that you repeat it just makes you look even less impressive.
However, I did find some factual information about liberal and progressive theology. I have provided it below. However, no where does it mention "unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand" as a sacrament, much less their highest one:
Liberal theology, covers diverse philosophically and biblically informed religious movements and ideas within Christianity from the late 18th century onward. Liberal does not refer to Progressive Christianity or to a political philosophy but to the philosophical and religious thought that developed as a consequence of the Enlightenment.
Progressive theology was much harder tp pin down, but I eventually found something from a Methodist church in the Midwest. In their promotion materials about who they are, they claim progressive theology as one of their unique identifiers. Below is a direct quote from their materials:
8 Points of Progressive Theology: by calling ourselves progressive we mean we are Christians who...
find more grace in the search for understanding than we do in dogmatic certainty--more value in questioning than absolutes
form ourselves into communities dedicated to equipping another for the work we feel called to do; striving for justice among all people, protecting and restoring the integrity of all God's creation, and bringing hope to those Jesus called the least of brothers and sisters
invite all people to participate in our community and worship life without insisting that they become like us in order to be acceptable
recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God's realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us.
have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus.
understand the sharing of bread and wine in the name of Jesus's name to be a representation of an ancient version of God's feast for all peoples
know that the way we behave toward one another is the fullest expression of what we believe
recognize that being followers of Jesus is costly, and entails selfless love, conscientious resistance to evil, and renunciation of privilege
I don't "believe" in theology at all. However, I do find it interesting from an academic/intellectual standpoint and have read a considerable amount about it.
Why would you assume that the fact that I know something about a subject makes a statement regarding my relationship to it?
For example, you likely understand the digestive system. Can I assume that makes you a turd?
Two rules I follow: 1) Don't treat others badly
2) Don't let the bad treatment of others get you down
If Jim H is Marxist won't he call himself that? From what I read of him, he hasn't made a decision on life issues either way but rather is very open-minded on the topic.
Why do you only comment as a guest?
What are you hiding?
My circumstances, at present, unfortunately do NOT permit me to get a Disqus registration or I would happily do so. It's a privacy measure.
Also, I am not a troll. I realise a few people have abused the guest commenting facility but I would rather give thoughtful, rational reasons for what I believe than troll people.
Try again."
The above prior comment of mine was removed. Josh Brahm and his blog are pathetic.
Last you'll be hearing from me on this thread.
That aside, I agree with your comment. Abortion does stop a beating heart and that is why I am so dead set against it. I doubt anything will change my mind on the issue.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/
You sound as if you'd get on well with the people there :)
When I say, embrace my femininity, that means that I will appreciate myself in every way possible including my biological processes. Never mind the offence that causes.
I think you will enjoy the Suffragette movie coming out then. I appreciate reading about the struggles women faced just to vote.
Also, I mentioned that I have no wish to suppress anyone. That being said, I am seeking a solution to this problem before us that will grant both pregnant persons their right to bodily autonomy and unborn persons their right to live, via technology and many other methods. I seek to care for and consider both because both are equally important, and it's time prolifers recognised that. That being said, my ideas of caring for both pregnant and unborn persons will not please everyone, and I recognise that as well.
I appreciate your contributions to this forum and I have found you to be respectful and considerate. Thank you. However, as a woman I appreciate men and their intelligence a lot too. I think men and women need to rule together, not one over the other.
I do agree that women need to step up to the plate and take charge of their lives though. The only difference between you and me is that I don't believe that abortion is the best way to make that happen. Also the only difference between me and the mainstream PL movement is that I don't believe traditional views on female sexuality or even the status of unborn persons are the best way to make that happen either.
I can understand that.
I wonder though - didn't we start from a small beginning? Also, if the zygote has less worth than the toddler due to developmental differences, would the toddler have less worth than a teen due to such differences?
Also, in regards to bodily autonomy - which type do you believe in, and I quote:
"The Right to Refuse Argument states that even if the unborn is a
human being, a woman has the right to refuse to allow the unborn the use
of her body."
"The Sovereign Zone Argument states that even if the
unborn is a human being, a woman should still be able to have an
abortion because she has the right to do anything she wants with
anything inside the sovereign zone of her body."
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/autumn-in-the-sovereign-zone-why-its-my-body-i-can-do-what-i-want-wont-do/
2. At least you are consistent with your view. You are correct to observe that humans generally don't step out of line to save the lives of others unless they feel up to the challenge. The Hunger Games illustrates that quite well.
3. What's a DSM 5 medical condition?
PS: "cuz I love you ... cyber wise ..." Thanks for the compliment, returned, cyberwise :)
As I mentioned, my primary focus is foetal rights and not punishing women for sex, hence the mention of high techs.
I don't choose to be viewed as an incubator. I'm not one. What I do choose is to seek out a solution that will genuinely reduce abortions while allowing women their right to live as they see fit.
I do appreciate your concern for our sex, and I have noticed the obsequious deference to male judgment myself. Which is why I'm trying to reclaim my femininity back, so these guys can't dominate me.
"but rarely on the technology to procreate outside the female body ...
and rarely on the systemic and institutional conditions that make it
unfathomable to bring a child into this world ... poverty, war, disease,
bigotry."
On this, we agree.
I do have a question though: if you saw a woman trying to drown her toddler due to depression and anxiety on her part, would you step in to stop the drowning taking place, or not?
I'm not sure poverty will ever be completely eradicated but it helps to reduce it, yes?
Also I advocate for contraceptives, sex education, and social safety nets. I am sorry that the mainstream PL movement hasn't made preserving bodily autonomy and unborn human life together its primary focus.
or be defined as evil, immoral, criminals, murders, etc ... or raise
their kids in poverty, crime, eventual prison or death ... then let that
be the political-decision of ALL FEMALES ... never EVER male
patriarchs:)"
Agreed 100%, because conservative Christian men who preach abstinence aren't helping IMO.
One question to ask though - do you personally believe it is your prerogative to step in when you see something unjust being perpetrated, even if that injustice does not personally affect you?
First off, I am not American. Second, I believe in the core doctrine of prolife, which is protecting human life from the moment of conception to natural death. However, I agree that the mainstream PL movement is doing more harm than good with its incremental laws. What I would like to see happen is superior technological alternatives that will allow unborn persons to live while granting women bodily autonomy, because I have talked extensively to abortion advocates and agree with the principle of respecting the bodily autonomy of both unborn and pregnant persons.
BTW, prolife to me means protecting ALL life of humans and animals, not just unborn human life. Which is why I appreciate the work that Black Lives Matter does.
"Bringing a child or children into poverty conditions is cruel!"
I agree that it is cruel. Which is why I advocate for fighting poverty, one of the root causes of abortion.
May I ask what led you to advocate for abortion to remain legal?
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2/
Please read it before proceeding here. Josh's rules are so strict that even a few of your friends failed to pass muster.
If not, then kindly worry about yourself.
Thank you for your concern Crystal. Have a great week. -:)
Also please let PJ, Infadelicious, and all the other banned folks and the ones that won't comment for fear of banning know that I appreciated their company, conversation, and contributions, and if they want to see me again they can write in at Secular Pro-Life Perspectives.
PJ4 and Infadelicious are great. I hold them both in high regard.
This post will serve as a message to PJ4 and Infa that Crystal holds them in high regard and that you would be happy if they re-connect with you at Secular Pro-Life Perspectives.
Kind regards,
Wild_Bird
Please pass the comment on to them via LAN if possible. This is also a message to Jed, Paul, Javelina Harker, etc. I appreciated them so much, LOL.
And thank you!
Please pass the comment on to them via LAN if possible. This is also a message to Jed, Paul, Javelina Harker, etc. I appreciated them so much, LOL.
And thank you!"
I do not have any of their email addresses. My reply to your post on Disqus will have to suffice.
Note you are free to register on Disqus and follow anyone you wish also.
I cannot even see your dashboard.
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2408439366
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2408462399
There's a little button at the bottom of each comment that says "Share". You put your cursor over it and see three little icons. The third one will drag the comment address out and create a new tab where you can view the comment to your satisfaction.
I thank you for writing back. Did I say I appreciated your fiery post at me?
How do you know that for sure?
Also, may I point your attention to the comment policy please:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
I am sure that you have a lot to contribute provided you read the commenting policy and observe it properly.
If a woman does not want the "problem" of an unwanted pregnancy, then she should take responsibility BEFOREHAND.
If she fails to do that, the unborn baby's inalienable right to life should be protected.
Once the baby's most fundamental human right has been protected and the baby has been born, the mother is free to put that child up for adoption.
Interestingly, your most fundamental human right, the right to be born, was respected yet you would callously deny that same right to others.
Have you no shame?
However if you're wanting to discuss the matter civilly and hopefully persuade people to your views then it's not the best course.
Also, I'm very sad that we can't talk about the things we have in common. I saw you were a multicultural, third-wave, feminist, African-American man, and I thought that was so nice, because I deeply appreciate multicultural, third-wave philosophy. I'd like to talk to you about these things and to understand why you advocate for abortion to remain legal, but I'm not sure I can if you're going to take digs at me the way you did.
I would respectfully ask you not to call us pro-death because it is extremely offensive. If I'm not allowed to say "pro-abort" despite having very good reasons for using the term, then it would be a good thing for advocates for legal abortion to reciprocate the favour, if you understand what I mean.
That put aside, I think we share a lot in common and you would be an interesting person to talk to.
I try very hard NOT to be nice to the action of abortion (I struggle in this area because of fear of humanity, more than anything). I consider it morally reprehensible and and have gotten into serious trouble for expressing such a sentiment and similar ones to it on more than one occasion.
However the people need to be reached, and I'm not going to be able to reach them if I start insulting them and using pejorative terms. I'd rather get someone to really think, and reconsider their position by being respectful than put them off by name-calling.
I'm very much for calling a spade a spade, and I understand there is a balance at the same time. You have every right to your anger, James. You are right, babies are dying. However taking out your anger on the action and the causes of the action rather than ridiculing and name-calling the people is the best way to handle this, IMHO.
Please read the comment policy before continuing to comment here as I appreciate your input here and don't want to see you get moderated:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
But first they have to be born....
When we deny a life by stifling it, we deny ourselves a chance to be blessed.
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
Oh, and this blog is a safe space, for prolifers who want to hear themselves think and advocates for legal abortion who want to explore prolife ideas.
Oh, and here's a relevant section for you to mull over carefully before proceeding further with any comments here:
"5. I reserve the right to delete your comments. This is my blog. I don’t have an obligation to publish your comments. The First Amendment gives
you the right to express your opinions on your blog, not mine.
Specifically, I will delete your comments if you post something that is,
in my sole opinion, (a) snarky;
(b) off-topic; (c) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing,
threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or
which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate my sense of
decorum and civility or any law, including intellectual property laws;
or (d) “spam,” i.e., an attempt to advertise, solicit, or otherwise
promote goods and services. You may, however, post a link to your site
or your most recent blog post."
PS: I don't take drugs. I'm a teetotaler.
Let me guess: you do?
Ann, I believe I should remind you of the commenting policy; please read it:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
Let me guess, dead fetuses are too specialty-special to dismember. Certainly they are too special to do medical research on, such as is often done on other dead bodies, because a dead fetus is so much more important and special than a live infant. Especially since that would get around your real purpose of making the woman suffer as much as possible by removing it in small pieces, rather than one large one.
How about this - I will make you eat a grapefruit. You will prove how easy it is to get a large object through a small hole by letting me stuff it intact, down your throat. If you prefer it be cut up, then you will have proven that you are a forced birth liar.
There is no right to someone else's body. Or any property belonging to someone else. If you have managed to get a hold of or occupy something belonging to someone else, it will be removed, or you will be removed. Even if it is necessary to use 'force and violence'. Even if it costs you your 'very life'. Even if you are really cute and even if spoiled teenage girls are really sad.
If you truly belive this, then why would you spend large sums money attempting to create a baby, to impregnate yourself...
Why do you believe you have a right to a baby's body?
I certainly wouldn't spend any amount of money trying to create a baby, and knowing Ann Morgan, she wouldn't either. That being said, adults who wish to procreate have every right to do so. The right to procreate is in no way, shape or form a "right to someone else's body."
It's the human right of adults to create a family (or not), and you have no right to interfere in that in any way.
So, you are admitting that Ann is a liar?
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
For instance, did you get my question about the idea of abortion being murder being responsible for the massacre that occurred recently? I think that idea is faulty; what do you think?
I don't care about affiliation or party or stance, only how I am treated and interacted with. You did not deserve my initial hostility, but I remain accountable for my good faith error in response.
You're not my enemy. Be well.
Kudos.
I do slip sometimes, especially when I'm stretched thin IRL. Then I take a break. :)
Take care.
For the record I neither flagged nor reported you.
However, I think that, due to Josh's strict rules, it would be best that you stopped responding. You're feeding him every time you write up. Besides, I appreciate your presence here and feel you have much to contribute provided you follow the commenting guidelines.
I would like your opinion on something though: what do you think of the idea that prolifers are responsible for the shooting because they call abortion murder?
According to the comment policy, name-calling and quarrels from other websites are strictly prohibited:
And I quote:
"5. I reserve the right to delete your comments. This is my blog. I don’t have an obligation to publish your comments. The First Amendment gives
you the right to express your opinions on your blog, not mine.
Specifically, I will delete your comments if you post something that is,
in my sole opinion, (a) snarky;
(b) off-topic; (c) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing,
threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or
which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate my sense of
decorum and civility or any law, including intellectual property laws;
or (d) “spam,” i.e., an attempt to advertise, solicit, or otherwise
promote goods and services. You may, however, post a link to your site
or your most recent blog post."
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
Name-calling and off-topic quarrels are not allowed here, only constructive criticism of abortion and life issues.
I appreciate your contributions very much but they need to follow the rules.
So tell me - do you think prolifers are responsible for the shooting because they called abortion murder, or not? And if not, why not?
In other words, "BE SILENT."
I even heard one advocate for legal abortion call for the government to persecute all prolifers because of the bad actions of some. I find such rhetoric distressing.
Positives: 1) a strong love for bodily autonomy
2) a deep respect for women's choices
and possibly a few other traits. I state this for many reasons, not the least of which is that bodily autonomy and consent arguments can be used to fight forced sterilisation and forced euthanasia, which is good.
For all these, their arguments, no matter how brilliant, cannot justify the wrong that is done every time an innocent human life is snuffed out of the world. They are academic, philosophical attempts to justify the unjustifiable. I'm a simple person, with a simple knowledge that "abortion stops a beating heart" and that is all I need to know.
No. Why is it rational to think they would be? Did "prolifers" incite or encourage such an action? Did they they act as accessories before the fact in any way? Are they responsible for Dear's mental illness? I think not to all of the above.
While I understand where they are coming from in the sense that abortion is not murder in the legal sense, it is murder in the moral sense. I am cautious about the language but care a lot about not compromising the truth of what abortion is.
I didn't mean to state anything as a given.
"If it was not murder in the legal sense, wouldn't you be obliged to explain why it would be murder in a moral sense?"
Depending on the situation, yes I would.
"You state it as a given that it is and I was wondering about the basis for that."
I state as a given that it is ... what? I ask because I'm confused as to what you're saying.
is not murder in the legal sense, it is murder in the moral sense."
You state that it is your understanding that "it" (your it) is murder in a moral sense. You have presented it as a given with no reasoning supplied for your belief. To me is is irrelevant whether abortion is murder in a legal sense or a moral sense. It can be murder. All killing isn't murder. All abortions are killing. Are some murder? In my opinion, a great many of them are, in both senses. Whether the law reflects that does not change the fact.
But a lot of the confusion here on both of our parts is the shift from talking about whether Speech describing murder is responsible for another's actions. Did you edit your post? The first time I saw it it had the "it" in it in place of the word abortion. I interpreted that to mean the speech, not abortion. If I misread, my error.
I have taken my understanding of how to describe abortion from Josh Brahm's site. He says it in this comment:
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/joshbrahm/why_rhonda_changed_her_mind_about_whether_to_use_the_word_8220pro_choice8221/#comment-2284604723
Yes, my question was whether the speech describing murder was responsible for another's actions. The it meant abortion, not speech.
You are going to be challenged if you run into Jed or me. Play's on words, double meanings, puns...And heaven help you if you meet up with Javelina... Ha.
"Politeness is just deception in pretty packaging" - Christina from Divergent
From what I know, old-fashioned people are less likely to discuss embarrassing topics, yes?
And to your quote: Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untraveled, the naïve, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as "empty," "meaningless," or "dishonest," and scorn to use them. No matter how "pure" their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best. ~ Robert Heinlein
Divergent is a teen dystopia. Used correctly, it can show up the flaws in the thinking that only certain groups of people are valuable for life.
I could see how circumstance or indoctrination might make a woman make a bad choice. I don't see how that could possibly excuse the practitioners who commit it.
You're right, Jed. They are mistaken. Although I believe we need to be careful with our words, I don't believe in compromise on the point either.
"Individual responsibility can never be reasonably transferred to others."
What do you mean?
"Responsibility is a unique concept; it can only reside and inhere within a single individual. You may delegate it but it is still with you. You may share it with others but your portion is not diminished. You may disclaim it but you cannot divest yourself of it. Even if you do not recognize it or admit its presence, you cannot escape it. If the responsibility is rightfully yours, no evasion or ignorance or passing the blame can shift the burden to someone else." ~ Admiral Hyman G Rickover
I appreciate your explanation about responsibility as well. I am liberal but not Marxist, and I'm betting you're conservative, yes?
Although I'm aware there was one guy who roused a crowd to cheers when he stated that he wanted to see abortion practitioners tried and hung by a legal court. Personally I do not believe in finding joy in death, otherwise that makes us no better than those committing the act. What say you?
That doesn't mean I don't acknowledge that anti-abortion terrorism exists, nor that I am dishonest about its existence. What it means is that I don't engage in it myself, nor would I be friends with anyone who did.
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
I'll be ignoring the venom and bitterness he throws my way
Not really worried about it
I'm just so used to this from them, it's like I'd be surprised if it didn't happen.
I could tell stories ...
I'm sorry to hear that :-(
If you don't like it here, take your convos there. I'll see ya :)
Hugs.
I thought it puzzling myself. Perhaps it's a glitch in the system?
You could contact Josh via email:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/contact/
If you don't like his answer, please at least write me one more comment to tell me a place I can come where guest commenting is permitted as I do not possess an account at present due to very unusual circumstances.
http://blog.secularprolife.org/
I hope you're not banned there.
You are quite wise my friend.
I give the credit to a fellow TFA commenter. She is the wise one.
As for the mess this forum is fast becoming again, I think I should tell you that I comment for two reasons: 1) to "minister" to others
2) to argue respectfully with them
All very good reasons I personally don't appreciate quarrels.
I liked you from the moment I saw you :)
BTW this troll is just abusive. Wade through the entire convo if you have the spoons for it:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/10/07/transgender-woman-attacked-and-killed-as-baptists-advocate-curing-transgenderism-with-prayer/
I've told him what's what. I was called a vile piece of filth, etc. Yet I find it interesting he never answered my questions on life issues. Because his position isn't prolife though he claims to be a conservative Catholic.
Oh, dear, I'm getting off-topic again.
As for your trials I see that Tiki Torch is extremely nasty. She uses several of the same words as Sharon - pro-lout, pro-loafer. She's awful. Prolifers weak and spineless indeed, I'd have shown her a thing or two.
Thanks for coming back, Shifty!
I wrote to them again via another email address. It is confirmed. Commenting with a Disqus account is not allowed :(
So if you want to talk to me we'll have to talk here or at SPL, just as I mentioned.
I hope they don't follow me onto Josh's site :-/
Oh you could also come onto COTR
I'm there a lot too
But I like Josh's site
He's so nice
They would be more likely to listen to me because of it, I think.
And I'm not sure
I'm having a tough time dealing with a nasty person at TFA who hates trans people :(
Welcome to the club!
On a case like eight-year olds carrying to term, I believe sensitivity on both sides is required, especially as there won't be an answer that will satisfy everyone.
Here's what Josh had to say about it:
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/joshbrahm/why_rhonda_changed_her_mind_about_whether_to_use_the_word_8220pro_choice8221/#comment-2286489209
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
To be honest, I see this philosophically.
For most of history, men have had their way with just about everything. There's just this one little thing men have never controlled. That's pregnancy and birth.
For a long time, nobody cared, either. It would have been seen as unseemly for a man to even discuss "women's business" much less have any part of it.
All that started to change with the advent of modern contraception. Once men realized they would no longer be in charge, and would have to share some of the power, well, some men have a tough time with accepting that. Some responded by coming down on the only area that has always been under the control of women. So now, there is objection to IUDs and birth control pills based on the off chance that a fertilized ovum might not implant. And women need a permanent scar and loss of fertility to justify saving their lives from a tubal pregnancy. It's all pretty nonsensical, and it's all pretty new.
Don't get me wrong. I love my kids, and I've never had an abortion. That's more good luck than good management. I was just lucky. I was never that woman with pulmonary hypertension who was 11 weeks pregnant, and a mother of four other kids. If I had been, would I have aborted? You had better believe it. I place primary value on my own life, and the lives of the kids who are here and depending upon me. And that would be that. There can be other pregnancies.
I wanted to let you know in advance what Josh's rules are so you don't break them, because I want you to be able to comment here without repercussions.
Civil disagreement is very much welcome here, however, and I appreciate your sharing your thoughts on the topic at hand.
(Hope I got it right, LOL)
And again, apologies
This
person is operating from the point where PLs say abortion is murder.
They say that if I say abortion is murder and compare it to slavery and
the Holocaust, how can I be friends with them? You see, would you sit
down to lunch with a nazi or a slaveholder? No? Then why would you treat
an advocate for legal abortion this way? Isn't it inconsistent with
what you believe to be friends with an advocate for legal abortion yet
say abortion is morally reprehensible because it takes an innocent human
life? What about the fact that since PLs are friends with advocates for
legal abortion yet hate what they do they mustn't believe unborn
persons are real people for sure, and they are doing it because it makes
them feel superior and they want power over others. The worst part of
their claims is that people like this shooter are the most morally
consistent because they act out what they believe, that abortion is
murder and then they shoot people to stop murder. How can you answer
such claims????
I don't call abortion "murder," although I think it's killing. I don't often compare it to slavery or the Holocaust, because while there are some valid comparisons, there are often a lot of comparisons between the two that would be disanalogous. I don't think most aborting women are as culpable as SS officers were who killed Jews, because I think it was a lot more obvious to an SS officer that he was killing a person than it is for a pregnant woman who has been lied to about what is actually in her womb.
I think the single most effective way to change a mind about abortion is in the context of friendship. I've written many of the reasons for this as well as several case studies here: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/category/relational-apologetics/
There's even an abortionist in Utah that wants to get together with me to discuss the issue. I would take that appointment, because it's my best shot at changing her mind. I think we've written a very thorough case in this post for why we're opposed to violence, so what's the alternative? I think loving people and having a good exchange of ideas is the answer.
who killed Jews, because I think it was a lot more obvious to an SS
officer that he was killing a person than it is for a pregnant woman who
has been lied to about what is actually in her womb."
Another point - when most people realise what abortion truly is, they forsake it. And I agree they are not as culpable, although they are not entirely blameless; they did have a hand in it. Also they say, there are pictures of ultrasounds and lots of pregnancy info with full-coloured photos so there is no excuse; they know fully, don't they?* I was informed on mentioning this that ignorance is no excuse, I think because would you excuse Germans who didn't know what was happening to the Jews? How do you answer such people?
I do, however, hold abortion practitioners highly accountable because they possess the full knowledge of the action but they do it anyway.
*I think bodily autonomy plays a huge role in this - getting rid of an unborn person despite its personhood not because it isn't a person (as you stated once).
Could you qualify what you mean by the terms "personhood" or being a "person"? Is it automatically bestowed by virtue of having human DNA, or does it require something additional; e.g., a soul or sentience?
You ever seen the movie Final Solution? It deals with the topic of racism in South Africa, where a young man wanted to start a nazi movement similar to the one in Germany. You know who changed his mind? His girlfriend asking him to think through things dealing with racism. His education, making him read Cry, the Beloved Country. And most of all, a black pastor whose unconditional forgiveness broke him down when he tried to assassinate him. If those people who say this are right then they were friends with a nazi-minded individual, weren't they? They didn't believe what they said when they stated that blacks were people with rights, did they?
Sometimes I wonder if I am being inconsistent when I talk about these things with people. I suppose their question is, if you really care about what you believe, that abortion takes innocent human life, why are you friends with me? Because it's a game for you and it makes you feel morally superior. That hurts so much. The thought of betraying what I think is very painful yet how can you reach people with the truth if you don't speak it in love?
"I don't call abortion "murder," although I think it's killing."
After that conversation with you I have tried to stay away from saying that. My friend brought up I had said that it was cold-blooded murder, and worked from that angle even after I tried to explain to her that I tried to speak in a more nuanced fashion on the topic due to your influence.
I think you're fair to say that legally, it's not murder. Morally, however, it is. And we're trying to get people to see that.
"I don't often compare it to slavery or the Holocaust, because while there are some valid comparisons, there are often a lot of comparisons between the two that would be disanalogous."
In a way I agree with you! Because the example of abortion isn't politically close to nazism, but it's actually closer to slavery, because in both cases slavery and abortion you were/are in a democratic society where these issues could/can be changed by due process of law. Not so with nazism.
Can you please explain how it would be both analogous and disanalogous to compare abortion to slavery (and if you can, nazism as well)? Please tell, I am interested, it would be so helpful :)
I realise that abortion is analogous to nazism in the sense that it has that mentality of being tied up with eugenics, would I be correct in saying that? Also is there a difference between rationally pointing out similarities and differences between the two, and saying "All pro-aborts have the mindset of a nazi"?
"I don't think most aborting women are as culpable as SS officers were who killed Jews, because I think it was a lot more obvious to an SS officer that he was killing a person than it is for a pregnant woman who has been lied to about what is actually in her womb."
I told my friend that and she said it was irrelevant, I think because the implication was because you wouldn't be so excusing of Germans who didn't know, would you? She asked me if a German told you it was totes cool to kill a Jew "because he didn't know any better" would you be friends with him long? How about a guy beating and battering innocent little babies in his backyard, all because he "didn't know any better"? Also would you honestly spend the time with a nazi or slaveholder trying to convert him? If you wouldn't why would you spend time with people who believe in abortion? She told me she's seen racists talk and she would never be friends with one, so why would a prolifer be friends with a "pro-abort", because "I wouldn't want to be friends with a Nazi, would you"? I suppose there is a huge disconnect between calling people nazis and being friends with them; I see her point entirely on name-calling! My rational mind tells me there's something wrong with all this stuff but my emotions go very haywire on receiving those kinds of replies. For instance, we don't have nazism or slavery around today like we used to. But we do have abortion; it's our new civil rights issue. So we have to, as a friend of mine said, get people aware of the problem and turn public opinion against it. It's the best way, especially as the law isn't exactly on our side.
I think what she was trying to say is that language is important. We walk a fine line between compromising our convictions by being too soft with the language (yes, there is such a thing!) and being too harsh with the language and thereby turning people away from our message.
"I think the single most effective way to change a mind about abortion is in the context of friendship."
I will certainly look at your links that you have provided! Also I agree with you about friendships. I am aware of how you helped sow a few seeds in the mind of one of your friends, thus encouraging her to come around. That was wonderful, though I know you didn't be friends with her to change her mind. Yet you've said, your first agenda is loving a person, yes? If that's so, would that logically apply to slaveholders and nazis, the scum of the earth, if you were living during those times? And no, I don't generally consider advocates for legal abortion (meaning my next-door neighbour, my teacher, my friend) "the scum of the earth" although there are times I absolutely hate what they believe on this issue and am horrified that anyone could hold such views.
"There's even an abortionist in Utah that wants to get together with me to discuss the issue. I would take that appointment, because it's my best shot at changing her mind. I think we've written a very thorough case in this post for why we're opposed to violence, so what's the alternative? I think loving people and having a good exchange of ideas is the answer."
What's the alternative? You answered it yourself. The point I think is the language. They're trying to say if you're going to call someone a nazi and compare abortion to the holocaust don't be surprised if someone acts on your words even if you're too cowardly to do it yourself, also why would you say someone has the mindset of a nazi yet be friends with them? Personally I've tried to stay away from language that would accuse people, and deal with actions and why I morally disagree. I don't think I have ever accused anyone of being a nazi or slaveholder or anything like that. I don't know why but for some reason when people see me they respect me, and I deeply appreciate that :)
You're doing the right thing, Josh. I applaud your efforts. Yet can you be close friends with an abortion practitioner, or would your conscience forbid it? Also, do you believe that articles dealing with anti-abortion violence (not single shooters like this guy) as it comes to bombing abortion clinics and terrorising abortion practitioners is made-up stuff to smear the PL movement or does it occur? I ask because you seem to know a few people in the PL movement very well.
Some would ask, due to the comparisons that others have given, if you could be so kind to an SS officer. But would you consider such a comparison disanalogous? How to answer these people I know not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My question is, I think, how can you answer such comparisons? What are the right words to say, that can show them you are genuine about what you believe yet you don't advocate for violence?
The funny thing is, this scripture runs in my mind (I'm not a Christian but was raised as one) which says in Daniel 12:3, KJV version, "And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever." That is what you're doing with your work. That is what all of us pro-lifers are meant to do. That is what we do every time we stand up for the truth. That's why we shouldn't give up. But can such a scripture apply to those other groups of people who oppressed and killed others for gain?
I want to apologise for rambling on and on and sounding like a stuck record but I'm so confused, and struggling to work it out, and I'm reaching out for help. I suppose I've spouted out a lot of nonsense but thanks for answering my questions! Also if I think of anything else I'll say, if that's okay. Thanks for allowing me to vent. I want to be rational when answering, consistent, peaceful, kind, uncompromising, loving, etc.
I think if we can change one person's mind on abortion, we've done a good deed. Just as much as if we peacefully campaign against the barbaric trade of dogs and cats being eaten for meat in South Korea and China, or any other human rights injustice. I hope you will be deeply rewarded in yourself today as you continue your work of reaching people for the truth.
The single point I made about it is sufficient (I think) to answer your friend. My friendship with a pro-choice person is not remotely analogous to being friends with someone who personally beats up babies in his back yard every day, because in the latter case it is painfully obvious to a person with a working conscience that this is wrong. I don't think abortion is nearly as obvious to many pro-choice people.
I don't know if I could be close friends with an abortion practitioner. Whether we could have lots of conversations like I did with Deanna would probably depend on how open-minded he or she was. Whether we would truly be friends would probably depend on whether we both cared about each other and were seeking each others flourishing. It's complicated. An abortion practitioner may think that flourishing for her is continuing to do abortions, and I would think that flourishing is abandoning that work.
What do you personally believe about all this? Do you think that comparing the practice of abortion to slavery caused this guy to go out and shoot people, or do you think it namecalling people who had abortions, or do you think it was deeper than that? Also do you think there is a difference between condemning an action someone does and condemning the person themselves?
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
Josh's blog is being treated like a rugby field at the moment and I'm not appreciating it.
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/dont-be-too-nice/
See, Josh has advice on a great many topics. He is a very smart man I've found :)
What's your opinion? Do you think that saying "the act of abortion is murder and morally repugnant" has any relationship to what this shooter did, or do you think something else drove him to it? Do you think it was calling advocates for legal abortion "nazis" and "baby-killers" that pushed this guy over the edge? I'd really appreciate your opinion on this, as I don't see how calling out an action and rationally explaining the similarities between abortion and slavery could result in hatred and murder, but I can see how defamatory and highly inflammatory language against a person or a group of people might encourage such actions.
That Javelina woman seems fair. It's a pity I never got to speak to her. If you could encourage her to come onto this site again I do hope for the chance of a word with her!
Also Josh Brahm, Wholovesorangesoda, Guest, Acyutananda, and a few others are nice people that you can have reasonable conversations with about this topic. They won't scream at you and will disagree in love.
"I guess my disconnect is that I cannot seem to grasp why you would have hated women who chose abortion."
I was a very young person at the time. Since I was aware of the barbaric nature of the act, and I listened to and read what prolifers had to say on abortion and other life issues a lot, I felt horror at the thought that anyone could do something so dastardly towards an innocent child. I have never lost that horror, but that feeling of repugnance transferred into hating women who had abortions. As I was ignorant of the many desperate circumstances many women who commit such an act find themselves in, I perceived them to be cold-blooded murderers who had killed their children because they were selfish, and I believed that such people deserved very harsh treatment. However, as I continued to read and educate myself via feminist theory and pro legal abortion literature as well as prolife literature, both that and the tokophobia disorder I am recovering from helped to change my mind on hating the people having abortions, though not on the act itself, long before I began speaking to advocates for legal abortion. And talking to these people who disagreed with me on this issue cemented the view I was predisposed towards, that the prolife movement was in dire need of reform. By that time my hatred for women having abortions was long gone.
Also, to save unborn people's lives. Since all life is precious from the moment of conception we should seek to protect it by whatever means possible.
Here's a comment I wrote about some of the problems in the PL
movement; please take a read of it and tell me what you think of it in general. Also do you believe that the PL movement would improve if such techniques were employed as suggested:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2396781480
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
Why do you say that? I would appreciate your backing up your statements please as I am open to learning about the integrity of every single person I chat with.
Also, I don't know the details but I'm aware that PJ and fiona64 have had a few run-ins (and no, I didn't ask PJ for specifics or anything). Of course if she is a compulsive liar I'm sure I'll find out eventually. However, I prefer not to take sides in online quarrels, and to believe a person innocent until proved guilty beyond a doubt. As I told another commenter, I care about every person I interact online with and prefer to speak civilly to people. So I will be kind to everyone - whether it's PJ or fiona64 or whoever else it is.
I do my best, is all I can say :)
There was a time I had a deep hatred in my heart for all women who had had abortions and was appalled when prolifers reached out to one in love and forgiveness. Now that I have read why women do it I am not inclined to be so harsh as I once was although I still consider their action to be morally reprobate. Also talking to advocates for legal abortion has stretched my horizons like you would not believe.
You see, even before I came across Josh's site I had these beliefs. But he has strengthened them. And I am not the only one who cares for these things. If you hang around ERI website you will find that Josh and his team believe the way I do - deplore the action but love the person. So if ever you want to talk to Josh about this stuff feel free, I'm sure he'll try to answer you though he is a very busy man. He was kind enough to let me know he couldn't answer all my questions before he stopped responding to me but I hope he'll continue writing back again :*)
I think such devices are key to finalising the abortion debate once and for all, although they don't completely answer the dilemma of adoption or parenting and those issues would have to be worked out as well, for this to really succeed.
I'm not sure what kinds of "reasons" fanatics could come up with to condemn such life-saving devices though. Could you expound?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placenta
BTW if you don't mind my mentioning it, my online name is Crystal rather than "dear".
I'm not so sure what was so innocent about my comments though, if you wouldn't mind expounding. I'm not trying to be vain or harp on too much but I really would like to understand.
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
The relationship between pregnant and unborn person is so unique it is the only way the ZEF can survive, for the present.
I agree. The statement "life can be cruel" is meaningful only because of the fact that life can be compassionate also. If not for that fact, "life can be cruel" would not mean anything.
In other words, "life can be cruel" makes it clear that there is an alternative to being cruel. Therefore, as you say, the fact that life can be cruel does not justify being cruel.
I couldn't have argued it better myself!
Life is compassionate every time someone stands for something just. We must cherish it otherwise we will have a devastating price to pay. You would agree, correct?
And you're absolutely right. It's called the conscience.
"When we do wrong, our mind shrinks, and when we do right, our mind grows bigger."
That is a very fascinating way of looking at it. How did you come by that interpretation?
Doing wrong like this corrupts our society, and contributes significantly to moral and social decay. We have so many rights but what is their meaning if my basic right to live is not respected? I am here to amuse myself during my breaks from working for the Elite System, nothing more. At least, this is what it reads to me.
That is to be found within Indian philosophies, and it seems correct to me based on my vast experience of doing wrong and occasionally right.
I will ask you a question about the Elite System later, but right now I have to go do something for a while (hopefully something right, this time).
Please, tell me more about Indian philosophies as it relates to this topic. I find Indian thought very fascinating :)
But that idea is probably based on the same subjective experience of the mind as the idea of shrinking.
"more about Indian philosophies as it relates to this topic"
A http://www.NoTerminationWithoutRepresentation.org/dismantling-the-bodily-rights-argument-without-using-the-responsibility-argument/ on bodily rights refers to Indian philosophy (as a possibility only, and without mentioning it by name) in relation to moral intuitions. Search in that post for "transcendent experience". I'd be happy to say more about Indian philosophy, but it would be better to discuss it in the comments section of that post, since it would be off-topic here.
Why do you say that?
I looked in your article, and tried to find "transcendent experience" via the search engine, and couldn't. I also found it a little difficult to comment (I am using Tor at the moment). I hope you don't mind if I take my questions on Indian philosophy to SPL instead then.
This forum has become a mess. People accusing each other, taking issues off-topic (and I confess I took things off-topic myself somewhat); could you come down and help sort this out please? It would mean so much to me as I don't want these folks getting banned when Josh comes back.
Hmm. It's there. Don't include the quote marks in the search. Please try searching with your browser's Search (usually Ctrl-F) rather than the blog's Search.
"I am using Tor at the moment"
At the bottom of the blog post, below all the other
comments, can you see "Leave a Reply"? There you just need to give your name and a comment -- no need to give email address or website. There our discussion would be on-topic. But if that doesn't work, SPL would be okay.
"help sort this out"
I know what you mean about the mess, but I don't have any authority here and don't think any commenters would listen to me. Moreover, Josh might just find any attempts of mine to be further complicating things. Someone has deleted all the Snarkalicious comments (funny though they were, in a way) -- wasn't it Josh who did that? Maybe he's on the case.
I hope you don't mind taking it to SPL!
As for the mess, you're very wise to stay out of it. I want your opinion: do you think my attempts to referee are in need of improvement or did I do well on the whole, or both? I'm asking because if I need correction I don't mind having it, rather than trying to be self-centered :)
I thought your attempts to referee were obviously coming from a positive place in you and therefore could only be well-taken by everyone including the moderator. They may have had some effect, even if it wasn't a complete solution. Actually I could have made a moral appeal of that sort also -- it was a more authority-based approach that I felt I would be unable to attempt. Some commenters wouldn't be familiar with me -- some might not even be familiar with you -- but for those who are familiar, I would think that I would have less moral authority than you, because it's obvious that you love everybody. I actually love everybody also, but I often make little effort to make that clear.
Please send me a post somewhere in the SPL world.
Thanks for the praise; it's very sweet of you and it feels like a shower of petals on my head. I'm happy to know I was helpful to the moderator as well! Just curious - how do you know I love everyone?
I don't like online fights, especially having been the target of being picked to bits by a whole group of people - it happened at least twice, and was a very painful experience :*(
I'll take my comments about Indian philosophy here then. Look for me there, and I'll try to get there ASAP:
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/12/what-creates-babies-sex-or-choices.html
Oh, and I owe you an apology. I have been a very naughty girl by not answering all your comments though I said I would, but I think in this case it is somewhat forgivable (if you will excuse my saying so) as I have been studying for an exam!
I'm sorry for asking so many questions but I wanted to be certain you were praising me and not upset at me. In short I did not want to misread your comments. Thanks so much. However, if I have misread you I apologise. If I have not I appreciate!
"I am almost brought to tears by the innocence of your comment."
Can you explain that one, please?
How to make a guest comment: Type in a comment. Where it says, "I'd rather post as a guest" with a little check button, you tick the button and you don't have to sign in. Then you can comment as a guest. Try it if you like and see how that works, and if you don't find my explanation helpful I don't mind trying to tell you again :)
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
I read, reply, think. I trust others do too, even if we end up on opposing sides. Both your advocacy and mine are useful in the light of the humble realisation that those reading both of us will, in the end, follow their own North Stars -- we're both only signposts.
Condemning the ACTION is not a point I can compromise on. It must be spoken of in the strongest of terms.
The PEOPLE who practice the action must be shown understanding and love even while we deplore the practice.
So I try to be careful about my language, not to compromise nor to cause unnecessary offence when I can reach someone for the truth.
Read Josh's articles. They are thought-provoking and I am a great admirer of him :) You won't feel hated as you read, I can assure you :)
What's the difference between saying: 1) Your actions could lead you down a morally reprehensible path because your beliefs are off-base/; you are advocating for something morally reprehensible
2) You're a fan of genocide
Which statement is more productive?
ERI is a very young organisation, a fledgling in fact. As of present he doesn't have much time to comment and he is keeping it strict due to time constraints, but hopes to debate a little better in the future :)
I'm actually glad you're asking me these questions and taking the stand you are; I tend to avoid the more frothingly vituperative posters, because it isn't productive for me. I'm not interested in being right -- like my being "right" means anything! -- only chewing on the issues.
I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose her sexual behaviour, and (as arguable as this is in con circles) to have access to birth control. No woman should ever be forced into sex. No woman, IMO, should be deprived secular medical prophylactic-preventative technology.
But with this authority and personal autonomy and technology comes responsibility. Women are not destined to be slaves of circumstance, we are not infants who need to be coddled, we are not stupid or dependent or inferior. We do not need abortion as it's being implemented now. We can do better, show ourselves as better, with even a modicum of applied planning and self-discipline.
BTW that is the kind of comment that could get you in trouble - name-calling is not permitted on this site. It's a safe space where prolifers and advocates for legal abortion can respectfully debate and discuss their differences, and hopefully learn from each other. I share my friend's mission. There is too much hostility between the two sides already.
You are not to feel bad about the way people treat you if you personally had nothing to do with anything to cause them to go beserk on you. The problem is on their side, not yours.
I agree being accused of not taking our words seriously by refusing to commit violence, then being accused of committing violence, boggles the mind. I have a couple thoughts here, dealing precisely with that subject, arguments you might find thought-provoking and helpful:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2389713979
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2393898255
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2387892637
It's just that I spoke to someone who had a picture and a name very similar to yours.
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2/
He won't be happy when he sees his rules have not been followed but so far as I know he tries to be fair :(
He is a stickler for politeness and pleasant discourse on this subject.
Just curious about whether you comment at Live Action, and no, that's not to stalk you but because I wonder if guests are permitted. I tried writing to Live Action to see if they could permit guest commenting at least two months ago and as of yet there has been no reply. Do you know of any way I might reach them so they respond back quickly?
Thanks for coming here and I understand your suspicion, you're not to feel bad as it's worth being suspicious of the identity of everyone on the Internet in order to keep safe. I would never stalk anyone online either, it's bad manners.
Now to conversation time:
What do you think of this sad incident and do you personally believe prolife language is inflammatory when describing abortion and the people who do it?
I only dropped in to reply to a friend , i need to head out. I am glad i ran into you again.. Maybe i will come back another time to discuss when i have more time. Thanks for your civility.
"I don't believe the pro lifers are responsible in any way for what
happened at PP. Those with another agenda, used it and other
horrendous acts to deflect away from pro life and some pro abortion
people that shone a bright light on the disgusting baby parts for
lambourghinis acts of PP workers. They deflected from that and pushed a
anti gun agenda to boot."
I agree that prolifers are not generally responsible for the shooting. In fact they came out and roundly condemned it. But I was informed by advocates for legal abortion that prolifers who condemn abortion and the people performing them yet refuse to be violent are inconsistent. I can understand when it comes to people but the action itself is worthy of condemnation.
Whether PP are selling or donating does not matter to me. They are in the wrong when they take the life of an innocent unborn person and place it under the guise of "health-care". I fail to see how it is healthcare to take another person's life away from them, despite my many discussions with advocates for legal abortion on the subject.
Anti-gun agenda? How did they do that one?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, will bring you some philosophy I wrote up on the matter:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2389713979
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2393898255
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2387892637
You might find it of interest. Hoping you will have a good day and thanks for acknowledging me :)
Josh has been away. I fear he will not be pleased when he reads the confounded mess his forum has become. I'll try to sort it out as much as I can to protect folks from being banned:
TRUMPET BLAST - ATTENTION FOLKS!
READ THIS BEFORE COMMENTING:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
I'm guessing most comments or threads that will be removed will be removed because they're off-topic.
I will only delete comments or ban people for what they say on our blog. I'm not investigating claims about other blogs.
You think I tried well then?
Also another point, will you delete comments where I'm trying to calm things down, and where we actually discuss the topic of abortion and have civil conversations?
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
I respect you but I want you to be able to comment here in freedom and peace and this is why I say these things to you.
Apologies.
You should come on LAN sometime!
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/12/what-creates-babies-sex-or-choices.html
And a fiscal conservative
There's lots of people in the LGBT community who are on the conservative side :-)
Similar story here though I'd consider myself quite liberal in many areas and quite conservative in others :)
Fiscal conservative? Wonder what that is?
"There's lots of people in the LGBT community who are on the conservative side :-)"
Wow, really? How can they be when cis-hetero conservatives are not nice to them?
To be honest though....I've only ever felt comfortable around conservatives
They don't care about my orientation or my ethnicity.
I have had some liberal friends tell my husband how proud they are of him for marrying a minority :-/
But progressive feminists are weak minded. They require trigger warning and safe spaces for anything that differs from their group think
I actually read from a progressive feminist site sometimes, and yes, sometimes you need trigger warnings for rape victims and spiritual abuse survivors. Sometimes you need safe spaces too. So there is value to such thought, but like you said, it can be abused!
Also, what do you find awesome about prolife feminists? Just curious.
I read Vindication back in college
PS: I'm not a Christian but I attend with my family at present.
That's pretty brave, considering how much the extremist conservatives hate LGBTQ individuals. But to each their own, I think.
"To be honest though....I've only ever felt comfortable around conservatives"
I confess to being a half-breed with liberal tendencies and conservative ones. Sometimes I call myself a liberal. But I like to get along with people on their terms and mine so I hope you can feel comfortable around me too.
"They don't care about my orientation or my ethnicity."
These conservatives sound neat. I have never heard of conservative people being so accepting like how you describe them. Can you give me a few examples because all I have heard from people calling themselves conservative is a strong dislike of people different from themselves, so please forgive me for my ignorance.
"I have had some liberal friends tell my husband how proud they are of him for marrying a minority :-/"
I can sympathise; I get where they're coming from but it isn't nice having your minority status mentioned all the time is it? To each their own, I respect the fact your life journey is different from mine.
Have you ever heard of "the soft bigotry of low expectations"? Also, there are different types of liberals, and some of them are just plain regressive. I don't belong in that group!
I was a far left liberal once. Then I was a moderate liberal. Then I woke up one day and realized I was conservative and I was lost. :)
The people who are right wing jerks literally get all the press. I don't hang out with them either. Honestly, the nicest group of people I've ever been with have been conservatives, who in a different era would have liberal - they are really classical liberals. Most of the people who call themselves liberals today progressive leftists or as as you noted, totally regressive. Spent a lot of time in secular, liberal/Democrat groups - not willing to go back. :)
"I can sympathise; I get where they're coming from but it isn't nice having your minority status mentioned all the time is it? To each their own, I respect the fact your life journey is different from mine."
This is what middle to upper middle class racism looks like 2015. The old style, honest stuff is still around, and I think some ways it might be easier to deal with. But even more politely put, what it is not is Martin Luther King Jr's dream of judging by the content of character. I have come to think of most accusations of racism towards conservatives (but not all, there is some) as a highly convenient projection.
Yeah, I'm liberal on most things. I draw the line at abortion
Oh, all the regular posters on LAN, and a great many number of my followers ---we're all pretty accepting of each other
Yes I've heard of the soft bigotry of low expectations
I think the term liberal is being misused : it's really progressive leftism
They sure are, when they get slammed for being evil and ugly coz they're different!
"Yeah, I'm liberal on most things. I draw the line at abortion"
Me too, except I add fundie Islam and a few other little things to the list.
"Oh, all the regular posters on LAN, and a great many number of my followers ---we're all pretty accepting of each other"
Great!
"Yes I've heard of the soft bigotry of low expectations"
Which is disproportionately practiced on minorities. Ex-Muslims are victimised by it repeatedly:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/12/04/activist-maryam-namazie-heckled-at-talk-by-muslim-students-who-say-she-invaded-their-safe-space/
"I think the term liberal is being misused : it's really progressive leftism"
In some ways I agree because these regressive people are hijacking the term that was meant to mean freedom and equality for themselves. In a way I disagree because there are plenty of good liberals who don't appreciate what they are doing, myself being one of them.
I want to share a way that I think would really help the PL movement really whack this abortion problem once and for all if you want to hear it.
I gotta get going right now, sorry
Have an x mas party I've gotta start getting for
Finished with the hair
Gotta go get my nails done and some waxing
Ttfn!
Enjoy your Christmas party!
Xmas party was fab!!
First off I’d like to recognise the good that many grassroots folks particularly in the PL movement have done – counselling women not to get an abortion (sometimes even on the sidewalks!), taking women into their own homes and helping them pay their medical bills, adopting children, offering education to women to better equip them about finance and childcare, among other things. All of these are good efforts, and the idea of CPCs, in and of itself, is a good thing also. There is much good that the PL movement has done.
But there is also much bad. Some PLs have advocated for terrorism and outright harassing and stalking of abortion practitioners. They’ve also screamed hatred at people
over the other side of the fence, and sometimes even shot them. Much of the PL movement is being run by a handful of people who care very little for pregnant and unborn persons and would much prefer to line their pockets with money and
power. The incrementalist laws I hear of are horrifying. We have only eliminated a few small percentages of abortion – 7% for instance – in forty years. We celebrate when it is 40,000 instead of 60,000. Supposing you add up 40,000 for two years, you’ve done 80,000. Alternatively we have weakened our language to stop calling abortion what it truly is – a human rights abuse, and compromised on permitting abortions in “some cases” for some reasons. We don’t really care about ZEFs either, I don’t think. We call those drugs and devices “murderous” yet we either compromise by taking them and promoting them to others, or we lie about their abortifacient properties when they are genuinely contraceptive, thus dehumanising women and contributing to the problem. We refuse to answer the hard questions about rape and incest and 9-year olds. If life really mattered why didn’t we find a way to properly eliminate abortion by now? Also consider this: sometimes we’ve been unnecessarily strong, to the point of causing unnecessary offence, when we accuse people of loving genocide, etc. We’ve condemned women for having sex while in possession of a uteri by throwing “you do the crime you do the time” in their faces because the mainstream PL movement is run by abstinence-only individuals that care about unborn persons second to sex. Sometimes we’ve even told outright lies to advance the cause. If we have the truth what have we to
fear?
I’ve been thinking about this question – for years. I believe I have my answer, and am still working on it. This is it, so far as I have it: 1) Keep up the good work that has been done so far. The childcare classes, counselling the women not to do it,
etc.
2) All lies must be eliminated. If someone asks another person if they are prolife they must answer honestly (I’ve
heard of CPC workers not being particularly candid when the question was addressed to them, to get women in the door; if indeed this is the case this is wickedness)
3) Stop compromising. Stop offering women pamphlets on how to get “safe abortions.” It is both disingenuous and
weakening to our stance. It makes us look something we’re not. Also quit the incrementalism! Incrementalism is hurting our cause like you would not believe. We must instead start campaigning for bills like the Heartbeat Bill, that get rid of 95% of abortions in one swoop. Also stop calling abortion “sin”; call it “human rights abuse” instead because that is what it truly is
4) Stop accusing. I have insisted that our language on the act of abortion stay strong. Our language towards the
people, however, has to change. It is imperative to study why women get abortions in order for this to happen. No, it is more than just convenience, I found out to my shock. We must stop telling people they are Nazis, and that they love genocides, and are just as bad as slave-owners. For all you know that could be your next-door neighbour and you lost them because you were aggressive and they were questioning the issue. This doesn’t mean there is never a time to use strong language. We simply need more wisdom in when it applies, I believe, and it should be used sparingly that the effect might linger longer. In short, we must show love and debate rationally, proving from science and morality why abortion is wrong; it's more effective than calling people a bunch of names
5) Educate yourself. Read sources from prolife and pro legal abortion sides to gain greater perspective on this very difficult topic. Read feminist literature – intersectionalist, liberal, the lot. Learn about the causes of abortion – rape culture, poverty, domestic violence, etc, and combat them in your community
6) Change people’s hearts and minds. Learn how to debate advocates for legal abortion with compassion. The real
point is to show them why abortion is a morally reprehensible act rather than to hate on them; you’ll find more people come around when you explain the stages of pregnancy than when you shake your fist in their faces
7) Alter our attitudes towards sex and pregnancy. As I mentioned before the mainstream PL movement is run by
people who insist on abstinence before hetero marriage. We need to become more sex-positive, more embracing of people with uteri, gender-fluid, gender-queer, trans, etc. We need to stop blaming women for pregnancy and embrace the fact they can be pregnant. Give them a base to come to when it happens rather than blaming them for it. Stop letting men off the hook – it’s bad politics. Also don't fear contraceptives and sex education. They are one of our biggest weapons in defeating abortion long-term and big-time.
8) Get interested in the sciences. Part of the reason many PL people haven’t been able to advance is that they don’t
have a foothold in the scientific community. They need to educate themselves on contraceptives, abortifacients, etc. If a drug or device is contraceptive, improve contraceptive and female-friendly properties. If a drug or device is abortifacient, remove abortifacient properties and strengthen contraceptive and female-friendly ones. Stop listening to the nay-sayers who claim contraception will destroy your country. Fight for voluntary sterilisation. Seek to create superior
technological alternatives to abortion so that pregnant persons can assert their bodily autonomy yet unborn persons get to live. As you improve technology we hope to touch life-of-the-mother and ectopic pregnancies so that women will no longer need abortion to deal with these cases either; in short, cut abortion from demand and supply to the point where women will not want to abort because they will not need to yet unborn persons are protected by law; also we especially need such technologies for the hard cases like rape and incest; they must be done in such a female-friendly fashion that they could be performed multiple times on the same women without complications to either her or the unborn person
9) Be honest enough to recognise flaws in the system. For the present if abortion became illegal pregnant persons, especially poor ones, would get the short side of the stick. They would be thrown in prison for endangering their unborn babies via drugs and might even be possibly punished for miscarrying. We need to create laws that will ensure that these kinds of abuses cannot be carried out on pregnant
persons. Women are people too
10) Improve circumstances so women can keep their babies. In addition to all we’re doing now, we have to improve our
adoption system, our social safety nets, our health-care places, etc, so that women can feel safe when they have an unwanted pregnancy – safe enough not to abort, safe enough to adopt out, and safe enough to keep if they want to
11) Feminise the movement. I am so sick of watching pregnant persons being thrown under the bus all due to some traditional ideas of their worth. Pro-life means prolife for all and not just anti-abortion. They are worthy of life too.
12) Take the issue seriously, discourage flippancy with either pregnant or unborn persons, behave like a decent person, and if I think of anything else I’ll pin it up too.
I think this guy was just a crazy man.
I feel the same way about music, tv and video games. They can contain violence but, that does not mean that it will influence the listeners, watchers and gamers to go out and do violence.
I agree with you! Yeah well, we have been blamed for this! All because we call abortion murder, we've influenced people to think of all advocates for legal abortion as murderers and indirectly contributed to this shooting. How selfish we are! If only we'd tone it down. Also would we be so nice to a nazi as we are nice to people who believe in legal abortion? Aren't we being inconsistent? I have been wrestling with these questions a lot and it feels a little frustrating. I have finally reached the conclusion that when it comes to people we have to tone it down unless there's good reason not to but when it comes to actions we have to be strong yet sensitive on the topic.
What say you? Have you had that experience? Or was yours quite different?
Did you read my long paragraph below and if so what did you think of it? And yes, I think it is on-topic!
Please come around to SPL and ERI more often as that is the only way I can have contact with you and I've wanted to chat with you for quite some time about so much, especially as we're so different on some issues and so similar on others :)
And bummer
Sorry you can't post there :-(
Why don't you just make a profile on disqus?
But if you could comment here and on SPL sometimes, I'd be so much obliged and I could give you a shout-out plus lots of energetic debates and empathetic chats :)
That Sharon Diehl is not a woman who is very respectful I am afraid. I respect her as a person but I find her arguing tactics dishonourable.
I'll come on every once in a while
Oh yeah I know all about needing to remain anonymous
You know they used to allow guest posters
I wonder when they stopped
Oh yeah Sharon... She's not a nice person. I have no respect for her. She cannot refrain from calling pro lifers all kinds of crazy names
Thanks WB!
They've sent the troops out after me
snicker
And by troops I mean their army of sock puppets and straw men
sigh
Their desperation is becoming more and more tangible
You're very kind. Please don't forget me! I've enjoyed the chat tremenjously!
"Oh yeah I know all about needing to remain anonymous"
I appreciate your understanding on the point! Once my circumstances change I can get myself a proper account, but this will have to do for now I'm afraid.
"You know they used to allow guest posters I wonder when they stopped"
Shame. What a shame. We could have talked a long time before today if not for this barrier :(
"Oh yeah Sharon... She's not a nice person. I have no respect for her.
She cannot refrain from calling pro lifers all kinds of crazy names"
Sharon was awful to me and all other posters so much so that even a fellow abortion advocate called her out on her bull. She ridiculed my loving upbringing because my parents taught me YEC via homeschooling (I am questioning YEC) and she was altogether jeering and mocking :(
Really? Which thread was this?
I'm totes sorry about your encounter with Sharon
If it makes you feel any better, she's like that with everyone who doesn't agree with her
Ok, I admit that I had to look up YEC
I'd never heard of it before
Pro aborts really love to mock people who have been home schooled
That puzzling to me though...I attended a really academic private high school and the kids who came from home schooling were so much smarter than a number of us
This one: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/09/dear-bill-nye-wheres-science-guy.html
"I'm totes sorry about your encounter with Sharon"
Thanks :)
"If it makes you feel any better, she's like that with everyone who doesn't agree with her"
It makes me feel worse, ugh. I'd feel better if I were the only one she mocked. She says she is all prickly like that cuz the fight for reproductive "rights" made her all feisty and unpleasant :(
"Ok, I admit that I had to look up YEC I'd never heard of it before"
Young Earth Creationism
And yes, I'm telling the truth my parents were a loving twosome.
"Pro aborts really love to mock people who have been home schooled"
That one did, ugh. My friends don't.
"That puzzling to me though...I attended a really academic private high school and the kids who came from home schooling were so much smarter than a number of us"
I'd say being homeschooled benefited me a lot! Yet private and public school have their advantages too.
What brought you to become a believer in prolife thought and practice?
Talking to a fellow prolifer like this is so refreshing, although I deeply enjoy and cherish the company of my friends who believe in legal abortion as well.
But after once I got to college I ended up taking so many classes in biology, anatomy, genetics and embryology that I could no longer justify bring Christian or pro "choice".
I'm not an atheist either though.
I've got a lot a friends and aquintences who are pro choicers, if they ever knew my stance on abortion, they'd never speak to me again :-/
As for me I have always been prolife, never doubted or wavered. It is so incredibly simple. Why wouldn't you believe?
No no, never been an atheist--just agnostic
I'm sorry to hear you'd be rejected though :(
"It's always one step coward, ten step me back with you."
BTW, I didn't mean to come across so strong but I'm Crystal and I love the extra boost and crowd.
For starters what do you personally believe about this shooting and do you think the PL stance on calling out bad behaviour yet not shooting people is morally inconsistent with their message?
You ever commented there, PJ?
Also, I wish we could talk about this issue at depth a little more. Question for starters, PJ - what do you think of the claim that Operation Rescue is a terrorist group and why? Also how do you respond when people say you are being inconsistent by advocating for peace? Would sincerely appreciate an answer to the questions if that's okay.
There are three different organizations commonly known as Operation Rescue:
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Operation_Rescue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Save_America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rescue_%28Kansas%29
http://www.operationrescue.org/about-us/history/
I don't think any can be considered a terrorist group.
I've never commented there.
Even if you're nice, you're met with invective and nasty comments
Hmm....
What is it that OR has done to be called a terrorist group?
Id say that no ones perfect and I try my best to be nice
However, if I get attacked, I will not back down
I have. But I have also been able to win the respect of most advocates for legal abortion. I have two that I chat with regularly and they are very kind to me despite our disagreements :)
I even have an abortion advocate who is one of my followers
It's always refreshing when I encounter a pro abort who is nice
Yes it is. I am prolife in case you didn't catch it. Though many people who like me tend to consider me "pro-choice" because in some ways I seem close to their way of thinking on women's rights though NOT on abortion! Pro-"choice" in every way but the most important one, I was told once. The Most important one meant Abortion, I cannot ever accept that practice as it is very immoral to take innocent human life but I stand up for contraception and sex ed and social safety nets and other measures to reduce abortion via supply :)
And yes, I agree: pro choice on everything except abortion
I'm totally bummed you can't come onto LAN :-/
Thanks so much! My friends on other websites who disagree with me on this issue feel the same way :)
"And yes, I agree: pro choice on everything except abortion"
Great! Just wondering though, about how you handle controversial drugs and devices that some say have abortifacient properties due to preventing implantation, yet others disagree and say they have purely contraceptive properties.
Just for curiosity's sake, do you think the PL movement is in need of improvement in any areas at all and if so, how? If not, why would you be content with its present state?
"I'm totally bummed you can't come onto LAN :-/"
As am I. The point is they never responded to my email ever. So I can't for the present though I have so wanted them to respond. Can you somehow get something through to them about guest comments, as you comment there regularly, and perhaps they will take a look. Thanks for talking :)
I'm mostly agnostic on it :-)
Just for curiosity's sake, do you think the PL movement is in need of improvement in any areas at all and if so, how? If not, why would you be content with its present state?
Everything always has room for improvements
Nothing is perfect and no one should become complacent.
I have no say over what goes on at LAN. I'm not a mod there
I believe I misunderstood the question. You meant the prolife groups. Here's an article about OR(s), unsure of its truth but if true is incredibly damning for prolifers everywhere:
http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/operation-rescue-s-big-break-how-organization-rooted-radical-fringes-anti-choice-moveme?_ga=1.201140013.246407826.1449257486
The link didn't work :-(
I am sorry about the link. It worked on mine.
Let's try again and see how it goes:
http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/operation-rescue-s-big-break-how-organization-rooted-radical-fringes-anti-choice-moveme
They're not too credible of a source.
It's like expecting a pro "choicer" to believe anything that comes out of Operation Rescue..
We all have our personal biases...
The battle lines are clearly drawn
To me this agenda means calling abortion a morally valid, acceptable "choice". What does this particular agenda mean to you?
"It's like expecting a pro "choicer" to believe anything that comes out of Operation Rescue.."
I can seen the sense in that.
"We all have our personal biases..."
Intellectual honesty demands that we be open to hearing and learning from a variety of sources even if we personally disagree with them. That is one particular purpose of Josh's work, actually, and this website is part of it.
"The battle lines are clearly drawn"
Why do you say that? I hope you don't mind my asking, I'm curious as to why you call it a "battle". Personally I would have tended to call it a "human rights issue" more because I don't see myself at war with anyone but I do see myself standing for human rights. However, you are free to disagree, and if you do I'm open to hearing why.
The same
Intellectual honesty demands that we be open to hearing and learning from a variety of sources even if we personally disagree with them. That is one particular purpose of Josh's work, actually, and this website is part of it.
Yet, I've yet to see much intellectual honesty from the pro "choice" side.
I used the term battle because i think both sides are on the attack
You're right though, it's a civil rights....battle.
I've experienced having prolife sources being called "lies" and dismissed out of hand rather than thoughtfully rebutted so I understand where you're coming from. Although I know one person who tries to rebut rather than dismiss. She's incredibly intellectually sharp, I think.
Do you mind if I ask a small favour of you?
Here they are below (but only if you want to reply), and take your time:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2396781480
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2397026553
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2397198387
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2396939550
Thanks for chatting with me!
You are aware of bodily autonomy arguments, aren't you?
"Yet, I've yet to see much intellectual honesty from the pro "choice" side."
In the sense that its personhood is not fully acknowledged I tend to empathise with this opinion. Yet the point of bodily autonomy is not getting rid of it because it is a nuisance but rather getting rid of it despite its personhood and humanity. Despite all this my two friends try hard to be intellectually honest people.
"I used the term battle because i think both sides are on the attack
You're right though, it's a civil rights....battle."
I suppose I could look at it that way. I simply don't tend to use military-sounding language to describe my position, for the aforementioned reason above.
Just for curiosity's sake, have you ever heard about tokophobia, and if so, what do you believe about tokophobia?
Nothing is perfect and no one should become complacent."
How should it be improved then, in your opinion?
All CPC's should be untied and secularized and operate in a similar fashion to PP
We need to make more public the good that CPC's do for women and show NARAL to be the liars that they are.
Which aspect is that?
Also there is more than one aspect as I mentioned in my long comment. Traditional prolifism is by its nature run by religious people although you don't have to be religious to be prolife. And I agree we must get rid of it. Why not start something grassroots that is genuinely secular?
"All CPC's should be untied and secularized and operate in a similar fashion to PP"
I think so myself. Women need to be given all their options without judgment and have access to contraception and sex education, services they can't do without. The problem with religious CPCs, much as they do good, is that they are out of touch with the sex-positive culture at large. People are going to have sex. Let's give them the tools to do it not condemn them.
"We need to make more public the good that CPC's do for women and show NARAL to be the liars that they are."
Can you tell me the good you know that CPCs do please? Also how are NARAL lying to the public? I am curious to know especially as I have heard both positive and negative things about CPCs. For instance have you heard of the manual How to Start and Operate Your Own Pro-Life Outreach Crisis Pregnancy Center by Robert Pearson? Also this is one place where they say negative things about CPCs, and I'll dig up more for you if you want me to:
http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=163224
I'm curious about that pamphlet because I want to see for myself if they are telling the truth or just trying to smear the PL movement yet again.
Also what do you think of the idea of forcing PP facilities to stop providing abortions and only permitting the sale of contraceptives and offers of sex education, via legal and financial punishment yet not shutting PP down? Do you think that is a good or a bad idea?
All of it. We need to stop invoking god; it just turns people off.
Why not start something grassroots that is genuinely secular?
In the works. :-)
I think so myself. Women need to be given all their options without judgment and have access to contraception and sex education, services they can't do without. The problem with religious CPCs, much as they do good, is that they are out of touch with the sex-positive culture at large. People are going to have sex. Let's give them the tools to do it not condemn them.
Yes
Can you tell me the good you know that CPCs do please?
You mentioned some yourslef... they help women with free day care, they raise funds to help pay for rent , food, etc..
Bernard Nathenson, co-founder of NARAL even admitted that they lied about the numbers of women dying in order to sway public opinion
OH.. and Naral had some "investigations" on how CPC's are lying to women.... you can google it.. it's a total farce with zero evidence
Also how are NARAL lying to the public?
Bernard Nathenson, co-founder of NARAL even admitted that they lied about the numbers of women dying in order to sway public opinion
Oh.. and Naral had some "investigations" on how CPC's are lying to women.... you can google it.. it's a total farce with zero evidence-- but pro aborts eat it up
I am curious to know especially as I have heard both positive and negative things about CPCs. For instance have you heard of the manual How to Start and Operate Your Own Pro-Life Outreach Crisis Pregnancy Center by Robert Pearson?
I've not, no.
Also what do you think of the idea of forcing PP facilities to stop providing abortions and only permitting the sale of contraceptives and offers of sex education, via legal and financial punishment yet not shutting PP down? Do you think that is a good or a bad idea?
I think that's a brilliant idea.
Stop making God the reason to end abortion. Agreed. Yet plenty of religious and spiritual folks will oppose it, and will mention God as their reason. Science and morality should be our primary reasons I think. Though it must be admitted many abolitionists were deeply devout Christians. Ever heard of William Wilberforce? Also, Martin Luther King Jr was a devout Christian and he used God to rouse his people to action over the vileness of racial segregation.
It's not so much the faith expression as the religious principles on sex that turn people off, I think. When you tell girls they're a licked candy bar for having sex before marriage then yeah, you'll have a problem. Of course people will think that you're trying to control pregnant persons! Get rid of the rape culture and apologism and abuse of women out of the PL movement as it's all rife in church culture, sadly :(
If you can't jump ship and start something new!
"In the works. :-)"
Great! Can you tell me its name?
"Yes"
How many prolife leaders will take such wise suggestions on board? When you have a conference in Utah opposing contraception and saying it opens the door to abortion because you're not open to life rather than because it could abort, ugh! What about when Bristol Palin opposes young women being implanted with IUDs (personally not sure if they stop zygotes from implanting but if they do my objections run in a different direction; would not oppose if they're genuine contraceptives), it's the principles of the matter? Why not improve contraceptives rather than banning them? What are these people thinking! For goodness' sake it's time for reform! Or breaking away and forming a new branch based on sex-positive principles.
"Bernard Nathenson, co-founder of NARAL even admitted that they lied about the numbers of women dying in order to sway public opinion"
Do you mind if I ask for a source please?
"OH..and Naral had some "investigations" on how CPC's are lying to women....you can google it.. it's a total farce with zero evidence"
I will when I can. But could you obtain a couple links for me to get started? Also, how are their claims baseless? Just curious.
"I've not, no."
I think it's time those kinds of things get asked about more often. I wish I could obtain the pamphlet myself then read it. I'd really like to see who's telling the truth here.
"I think that's a good idea."
I will say it is worthy of consideration at least. When you have prolifers going to PP to have resources for dealing with an unwanted pregnancy and buying contraceptives from them, it is a thought. On the other hand, if it is indeed true that PP has such a dark past with eugenics, is this okay to consider? Taking all the evidence into account is very important when dealing with questions like this.
BTW that idea came from a friend I have who is an advocate for legal abortion. She threw the suggestion out there saying if PL movement cared for life like it claims it would do just that rather than defunding PP and making the organisation defunct, basically.
Some of the PL leaders are wackos. The PL grassroots seems a pretty intelligent bunch IMO. But it looks as if the higher up you go the dumber you get. Though I will say this doesn't apply to all PL leaders but rather a select few but powerful number.
For instance, ever heard of Doug Wilson? He's not exactly a leader but he has clout in the more extreme factions of conservativism.
I try to be nice. I love people and care about listening to what they have to say.
"What is it that OR has done to be called a terrorist group?"
Well! Saying abortion is murder (which is true). Saying doctors who perform abortions are murderers and the women who do them are too (I say caution with this because we want to reach people and help them understand rather than accusing them right out the gate). Then we don't advocate for violence. I got asked if I would be so kind to a nazi and then when I said no I'm informed prolifers don't really believe that ZEFs are truly persons because they won't be violent.
My responses to such faulty logic:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2387892637
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2393898255
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2389713979
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/11/paternity.cases/index.html?eref=yahoo
What constitutes the line of unborn sentience, "real live people", etc continues to be challenged by increasingly more refined scientific and technological parameters. But I must commend you -- when you write "And the unborn do not have any greater rights than fully live and sentient people.", you recognise they have equal rights to life. Definitely not greater: I agree. Equal.
So they have a right to life, just as you and I do.
This is the foundation of child support payments and neglect laws, after all.
However, it gets a little complicated at foetal killing. The mother may choose to do so. The father may not force her (legally) to do so, even if it poses no more risk or harm to her than a standard medical abortion. This adds the layer as you've noted of the mother's biological autonomy in addition to the personhood of the foetus.
This boils down to a particular difference in vision as to how much emphasis female voice and biology be given as weighed against the rights of non-women.
As I do not believe I should be given any special abilities as a woman under the law than either a man or even a foetus (as the unborn largely meet my benchmark for what is a human being), I must reject abortion (among other things, like affirmative action) unless or until a man has the right to terminate his offspring under the same conditions women can.
If the foetus is not a person, and the abortion is performed under standard medical care and risk (which is widely viewed as extremely low), why should the biological father not be able to terminate with the same freedom as the mother?
Unfortunately "because she feels a certain way" is not a good legal precedent; and the mere facts of her biology, if upheld, open the door for the mere facts of the foetus' biology to be considered equally. Why does one biology trump another?
Have you heard of the Thomas Beatie case?
I accept that "man" and "woman" are becoming increasingly irrelevant in social terminology, but speaking from a biological standpoint there are still benchmarks and I do not tailor my language to suit gender fluidity.
Beatie is a he socially. A she genetically and structurally. In this way there are no pregnant men (males). Beatie is not a man, but a trans man.
I don't. I'm resisting Wonderland. Tired of the Queen of Hearts ruling the conservation. ;)
"Beatie is not a man, but a trans man."
I'm not even willing to give that much ground in this particular topic.
She's a woman, who has successfully convinced the world for her own purposes that she is not. She was a model in her teens, for goodness sake.
Yes, she does pull off a tie very well in male manner. But her walk in Wonderland is going to mess up her kids. I don't have much patience for it.
I strongly support gender-fluid language, BTW. So we will have to disagree on this topic, I'm sorry. That doesn't mean I won't treat you with respect; it just means we will have a difference at this particular juncture.
I have been around people with mental illnesses. My Mother has had been a client of the mental health system for as long as I can remember. I can tell you from personal experience that the way to make everything worse is to try to make their pretend world as real as possible. It just never works.
I do appreciate the pain, more than it might initially appear. But the way to less pain is to acknowledge reality, not shelter people from it. It's the only path to peace or even something resembling it. It seems to rude them, but their system of understanding the world is already quite skewed.
"That doesn't mean I won't treat you with respect; it just means we will have a difference at this particular juncture."
That's perfectly fine. The world at large, thankfully, has not had my personal experiences on the matter. :)
If a gay person wants to change to hetero, I support that decision. If they don't I won't. Yep, I actually got in trouble for saying being gay was a choice but a choice to be respected like religion, once :(
As a mentally ill person (schizophrenia) I personally disagree that they are mentally ill.
I have been recently battling (a little) with a guy who thinks transpeople aren't people but now they've changed themselves they deserve death. He gloated over the fact he'd spat in a gay person's face. I'm curious as to your take on that one.
Yes, this is a difference of experience/opinion. I've never met a truly mental ill person who really thought they were mental ill or really accepted it. Not even my Mother, really.
The only way to classify mental ill, to me is the inability to cope, in some manner with life and requiring outside help in the form of therapy and drugs. People who imagine their life would be better as another gender are chronic users of the mental health system by definition. A shocking number of homosexuals are the same. They simply aren't coping with life and turn to others for help on a regular basis, for stuff that most people simply face with a shoulder shrug, a laugh, or sometimes a cry.
"As a mentally ill person (schizophrenia) I personally disagree that they are mentally ill."
I'm going to go for as gentle as possible with this next statement and follow by a compliment. If you really are schizophrenic, you are no position to judge the mental health of others. :(
That said, it must be extremely mild and/or anxiety induced because none of the schizophrenics I've met are having conversations like this. (Admittedly small number, I'm not a working professional.) Nor have they ever been really able to accept it. One of the many ironies of life (at least from my view.) The moment you can 100% accept you have a mental illness, you're well on your way to recovery.
"I have been recently battling (a little) with a guy who thinks transpeople aren't people but now they've changed themselves they deserve death. He gloated over the fact he'd spat in a gay person's face. I'm curious as to your take on that one."
I think it's very unfortunate that people use the problems of others to hate and shore up their own insecurities. It's terrible actually and I would stop it if I saw it and argue against myself. There's really no excuse for that type of behavior.
mental ill person who really thought they were mental ill or really
accepted it. Not even my Mother, really."
Well, a mentally ill person, if they can accept there is a problem, there is a chance for healing. Also I don't accept it. I acknowledge it exists but I don't call it "my mental illness" but rather "the mental illness that assaults me".
"The only way to classify mental ill, to me is the inability to cope, in
some manner with life and requiring outside help in the form of therapy
and drugs."
As someone who is seriously considering therapy when I get the opportunity, I take issue with that definition. Do you seriously believe that a person who suffered torture in prison (I didn't) and would go for therapy to work through that problem is mentally ill? Also I have a very dear friend who was raped, and the thing she needs is therapy. To say that victims of cruelty are mentally ill because they need therapy sounds unreasonable to me, to say the least. Last but not least, some people suffer with depression who do need drugs, and yes they would be mentally ill. But mentally ill doesn't necessarily mean violent.
I realise that a lot of people in the LGBTQ+ community suffer greatly with a lot of unresolved issues, so I'm not just going to dismiss what you said about these people getting therapy, etc, because I'm not that close-minded. I think that at least part of their problems stem from the fact they are seen as dirty and abnormal for who they are/who they choose to be.
"If you really are schizophrenic, you are no position to judge the mental health of others."
True indeed. But, with respect, it seems to me that you could be doing just that. Can you honestly prove that trans people are more mentally ill by virtue of being trans than cis people (people whose biological gender matches up with their mental gender)?
"That said, it must be extremely mild and/or anxiety induced because none
of the schizophrenics I've met are having conversations like this."
There are times I struggle to type or write. You could be correct in saying it was mild, but I had problems much more severe than this a long time back. Furthermore, I'm not on drugs. That might make a difference. I asked God to heal me and s/he is doing just that.
"I think it's very unfortunate that people use the problems of others to
hate and shore up their own insecurities. It's terrible actually and I
would stop it if I saw it and argue against myself. There's really no
excuse for that type of behavior."
On that, we agree totally. I appreciate the fact you can recognise such behaviour is wrong. Furthermore, I don't believe just because you disapprove of an action means you are a hater of people. I hate abortion, fundie Islam, rape culture, white privilege, and a host of other evils. But that doesn't mean I let my hate of the action transfer onto the people practicing these actions, despite the fact I consider such actions extremely evil.
I don't think it's wrong to critically evaluate a sexual behaviour either. I do it myself. I simply believe that critically evaluating a sexual behaviour shouldn't include discrimination against a marginalised group of people without good reason. If it could be proved to me, for instance, that gays are more pedophilically inclined than heteros from unbiased evidence or personal critical observation I wouldn't shut that out. But at the same time I would not be open to hating on all gays because of the actions of a few, or even a significant minority of the minority.
I deeply appreciate that we can talk civilly about this, LOL.
Also, I realise it's getting off-topic. Why not transfer the conversation to this website:
http://blog.secularprolife.org/
Thanks for the chat :)
My patience is increasingly wearing thin as well. True story:
A family member works in a homeless shelter for men, and is now having to navigate trans issues that are disrupting the already tenuous ecosystem of the street community.
Last week, a woman showed up claiming to be a man, demanding a berth. The shelter must comply. She then used her time there to turn tricks. When questioned, she said "Well I'm a GAY man.".
There is also a guest there claiming he is a woman, so he wants a female bathroom... in a men's shelter. The workers have had to give up THEIR private bathroom to accommodate.
Insanity.
If I accept special graft simply for my biology and female identity, I can never complain when I am dismissed or insulted or denied jobs for it. My female standing as a protected class, in need of more allowances than men because I have a uterus, is already legally recognised.
No the woman doesn't "own" the fetus. But she does own her uterus, and as such gets final say on what it's used for. You know (and I'm not trying to be a smartass), I have never heard an anti-abortion argument that couldn't be used to justify rape. That's right. I don't care what my vagina is "for." It's mine, and I get to decide who uses it and how. And I can kill to keep that right.
If we do not have rights to organs that are not ours, then a woman cannot ethically donate the organs of that foetus.
I agree a woman can dictate what her reproductive organs are used for -- which is why I come down so heavily on rapists and why I staunchly advocate for birth control. Except in the rare and horrible cases of rape, a woman does indeed have the ability to stop her uterus from being used to house a baby... before it happens.
Afterward is when the lines become drawn -- because there is a question of where her body stops and another's begins.
Like most anti-choice people, you are making value judgments about how women have sex. Otherwise, you wouldn't so easily assign less value to a fetus conceived in rape to one conceived in love. To me, there is no difference. She can house or decline to house either one. I can conclude that to you, it's not about a fetus. There is no line to draw. Her body is always hers.
I have nothing but admiration for organ donors, and whole body donors. Their selfless donation makes it possible to save lives and improve the lives of many others. You're barking up the wrong tree if you expect that to disgust me.
So sometimes we do have rights over organs that aren't ours. Excellent! So a foetus piggybacking on its mother's living organs should not be a disgusting idea; that's just how it works.
Parents can also compel their LIVING minor children to undergo medical treatment, up to and including surgery, but even that includes no right to make an organ donor of a living minor child.
The implications are that all babies and children who need organ transplants must obtain them from babies and children who have passed on, because until they grow large enough to accept adult organs, there are no living donors for them.
Trust me, if it were you or your child, you would develop a deep appreciation for the generous donations of people in tragic situations. They care enough about others to make that sacrifice. I myself have cadaver donor tissue in my own body, and it's greatly enhanced the quality of my life. I have nothing but gratitude for the anonymous donor. So much so that I wrote letter to their families, letting them know how their unselfish gift made a big difference to a real person, rather than an abstract idea. I think they deserved to know that. And my desire is to return the favor when the time comes. I am a registered organ donor.
It's the right thing to do.
This is not about organ donation. It is about your challengeable statements about who has what right to whose organs, and the rationale for such.
If a mother has the authority over her child's organ donation, why does she not have the coin's flip side of care for those organs? Why is she only responsible in the negative, especially in utero?
Because if the organs are being DONATED, that means the child is DEAD. Did you seriously need to be informed on that matter? You and all the up-voters of your comment? Really. No wonder you don't 'get it.'
As an adult and a person, I do not have to allow an unwanted person to use my body as a walking incubator.
They're certainly dead by the time the process is finished, though. Evisceration does that to a person.
The alteration of language to mask the potential horror of a situation is very common.
"Don't call it a baby; that's dishonest."
Yet when the mother wants it, she automatically talks about the baby. I'm not against using scientifically correct terms, though. If it's foetus, scientifically, I will use that. Yet the colloquial usage term is baby and that's what we try to point out here - the inconsistency.
Also softened - the "procedure", etc - no we need to talk about it in its ugliness so people will be repulsed - with the action not the person committing the action - and turn away from it.
Once I did, my switch flipped. Not that I'm especially squeamish -- quite the opposite -- just that the "not a person" stuff went poof in an instant.
I was raised in a very prolife family in the sense that my family's belief on the question was prolife; we didn't campaign outside clinics or that sort of thing. I have always believed abortion is wrong. You can't help recognising its humanity when you see the little unborn person developing, via ultrasound, etc. It's a small person all right. When they use the big-sounding words to describe abortion, they are trying to soften that nasty reality that abortion kills, but when someone looks up the words they use they learn differently.
What led you to view abortion baldly, if you wouldn't mind relating?
While in Delaware, I stumbled upon a full page of ads for abortion clinics. As here abortion is part of our healthcare, I'd never seen an advertisement for it. One of these ads had, in very small print, "up to 23 weeks" (NB: this may have changed in legislation since then, but such does not change the core of this narrative).
I read that line a few times.
23 weeks.
5 1/2 months.
This niggled me. I'd patted the bumps of 5 1/2 month mothers. Surely it wasn't just a clump of cells then?
So when I got home, I went to the library and researched embryology and foetal development. I then promptly puked in the bathroom for several hours. I felt I'd been lied to my whole life.
THIS is why ultrasounds are important.
They are telling the truth when they say it's a clump of cells ... in the very early stages, zygote and possibly blasocyst, but even then, the cells are rapidly dividing and moving. When it has attached to the wall and begun developing into a human form, it has become more than a clump of cells. I mean, little buds start forming on the hands about, like, six weeks after the last menstrual period:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302
How can this not be a human being? I do not understand. To perpetuate this idea of it being a clump of cells at five months is beyond me. Yet they might say "bodily autonomy instead" because it's obviously more than a clump of cells then. It's wrong, all wrong.
"THIS is why ultrasounds are important."
Personally, I think that ultrasounds should be voluntary if a woman is getting a check-up and being counseled not to have an abortion. If she refuses an ultrasound it is not wrong to show her pictures of what she is carrying though, I think.
Yes, ultrasounds are important because they blow this stuff out of the water. You're right there.
You can't simply say "Abortion means the murder of an innocent human being" when the word means nothing of the kind. This is "Lewis Carol-ism", stating "Words mean what I say they mean." No, they absolutely don't, and that is the linguistic sophistry.
"Person" is a legal term, and doesn't always mean a human being. "Abortion"(as we're using it) is a medical term meaning the termination of a pregnancy prior to viability.
"Murder" is also a very precise legal term that isn't defined the same as "killing." And the victim need not be "innocent."
This is fairly easy to deconstruct, for me.
Consensual sex resulting in conception cannot be equated to forcible kidnapping. The Good Samaritan argument dissipates when the woman chooses to hook herself to the violinist, or even chooses the predictable roulette possibility of such.
A first year Crit-Think student could destroy this.
Edited to add: I'm not inclined to post here anymore. But I've enjoyed the discussion and give a nod for the breadth I've been given.
You're arguing, in essence, that if I have consented to something, that consent is once for all time. Consent doesn't operate that way. I can withdraw consent in the middle of a sex act, in the middle of pregnancy, and yes, after a week or a month of hooking myself to the violinist. EVEN if he will die, and EVEN if he only needs it for nine months.
The fact of the matter is I don't owe it to him. His need doesn't create a right. And yes, it would be a tremendous act of Good Samaritanism, regardless of who did the hooking up.
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/12/what-creates-babies-sex-or-choices.html
You could give your opinion of the article at the site and I could respond to you there not here.
As for that Thompson's Violinist, I have run into it commonly in my discussions with abortion advocates. It is such a confusing argument I nearly tear my hair out over it. Warning - if you debate with these people for a long time you will hear it, mark my words.
"Consensual sex resulting in conception cannot be equated to forcible kidnapping. The Good Samaritan argument dissipates when the woman chooses to hook herself to the violinist, or even chooses the predictable roulette possibility of such."
Ah, but you see, the point is, she chooses to allow the unborn person a chance at life, just like the woman choosing or being forced to be hooked to the violinist, and she can withdraw her consent at any time. So, in other words, you cannot use another person's organs without their consent, not even for your very life.
Ever heard of the court case McFall vs Shrimp; if not, I suggest you read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McFall_v._Shimp
This is one case that is being used by advocates for legal abortion to stop prolifers from winning in the legal sphere.
In unborn children, there is no duty of care but similar authority, despite scientific evidence of individual personhood (especially at the point of development at which organs become biomedically useful).
Is this, yet again, an asymmetric example of "Mother knows best"?
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/12/what-creates-babies-sex-or-choices.html#comment-2409540115
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/12/what-creates-babies-sex-or-choices.html#comment-2408769385
I hope to see you there.
Quotes taken from the following:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/autumn-in-the-sovereign-zone-why-its-my-body-i-can-do-what-i-want-wont-do/
"The Right to Refuse Argument states that even if the unborn is a
human being, a woman has the right to refuse to allow the unborn the use
of her body."
"The Sovereign Zone Argument states that even if the
unborn is a human being, a woman should still be able to have an
abortion because she has the right to do anything she wants with
anything inside the sovereign zone of her body."
Which one is it?
I ask not because I'm dumb but because I want to get it right, and also because others see bodily autonomy a little differently, as I described in my previous reply.
I read through your conversation last week, and wanted desperately to chat with you about the nature of criminalisation and a few other topics because I don't mind a little healthy debate.
"If I accept special graft simply for my biology and female identity, I
can never complain when I am dismissed or insulted or denied jobs for
it."
With respect, I must disagree, because women should never tolerate being dismissed, insulted, or denied jobs for being a woman, if I am reading you correctly.
I agree that women should never be treated badly simply because they're women.
The other side of that coin is that women should never be granted extra privilege simply because they're women.
Abortion is a deeply feminist topic for me; I simply think, in application, the pro-choice side is truly turning women into "the weaker sex -- needless slaves to their biology -- instead of establishing equity with men.
I think you're right about privilege as applied to women. However, sometimes women should at least have certain advantages tailored to suit their needs, like menstrual leave, for instance. Have you heard of it?
"Abortion is a deeply feminist topic for me; I simply think, in
application, the pro-choice side is truly turning women into "the weaker
sex -- needless slaves to their biology -- instead of establishing
equity with men."
How is it doing that?
BTW I'm prolife.
My stance that the pro-choice movement as a whole is setting back gender equity is fairly straightforward: Women are legally granted the right to terminate a foetus solely based on being women.
Given that:
QED, the law follows a narrative not based in science or gender equity, but based in "sympathy" for women, and gives them an unjust weight based solely on having female parts. I do not want sympathy (or laud) for being born with lady parts.
I wholly reject being judged solely on having female parts. I do not want laws in place that canonise being female as requiring injustice to others. To do so lessens me.
It is a known fact that pregnancy can kill women, hence the intense desire to allow women that leave of absence from responsibility. Furthermore, men don't have to suffer any potential drawbacks to pregnancy, although they do have their wallets sucked dry.
However, I agree with your point that women can take innocent life simply because they are women. That is not just to the unborn person, I think. You have explained your position very well and have given me thoughts I never considered before, so thanks. I think they are injustices too, but not so much to gender equality outside the womb as to all unborn persons, male and female alike. I wonder about the unborn women who should have had careers and equal pay. Apparently, their rights don't count in the womb because they're "intruders" if the woman doesn't want them.
Menstruation is a real thing, and is not treated (IMO) with balance currently. I support women in the military on principle, for example, but pretending it doesn't exist and doesn't affect performance (especially in Infantry) is foolish to me. Both the push to pretend women are the same as men in practice, and the glorification of its superficial byproducts as a feminist icon, gloss over the very truths it represents: women are different, we are life-bearers, necessary to society on a significant level.
Pregnancy can be harrowing. I am sympathetic to fears of it, especially because my own nearly killed me. I always come back, though, both to the fact that I knew this going into it and accepted the risk, and that my own diligent and exacting birth control/sexual refusal practices meant I really did choose my own risk. Eyes wide open.
I worry about the infantilisation present in (at least my own country's) abortion laws. When women are given a free pass for reckless or thoughtless action, while men are not, what does it say for women's ability to make sound judgements and bear accountability as men do? Are we not as smart, prepared, and brave as them?
Menstruation is beginning to be recaptured by certain groups of feminists as the special gift that it is. You’re right, we can’t pretend that women are the same as men biologically because they’re not. Yet the gift of biological femininity has been cursed and spat on by a patriarchal society that hates the fact that this
one thing is out of their power (I hope you don’t mind my saying that).
As I mentioned before, I appreciate the fact you don’t downplay the downsides of pregnancy and pretend that every baby comes out in a puff of smoke. I personally consider it very important to encourage women to search out either medical, natural, or
spiritual methods to overcome pain and discomfort in childbearing. We need to talk about it more, especially if we’re encouraging a woman to keep her baby. Feminine biology is much more spiritual than we realise and when we deny that,
we do ourselves great harm.
For the record I am tokophobic which seriously affects my views on childbearing. I find it both arousing (if painless but effort-filled) and terrifying (if painful). Here’s my story about struggling with tokophobia for years and finally beginning to recover from it:
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/10/i-am-equal-not-same.html#comment-2309219176
So I thank you for your sympathy. I also recognise that many advocates for legal abortion want children of their own, and cherish their children. The only difference between them and us is that they see the extension of life as a gift from the mother which can be withdrawn at her will, and we see the extension of
life as a gift from God which can only be withdrawn with the Higher Power’s consent.
“I always come back, though, both to the fact that I knew this going into it and accepted the risk, and that my own diligent and exacting birth control/sexual refusal practices meant I really did choose my own risk. Eyes wide open.”
I must respectfully disagree. I take the pro-“choice” view that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy very seriously, because unborn persons are gifts from God rather than punishments for having sex whilst in possession of a uterus, and
stating the traditional pro-life view on the issue seems to lessen the worth of unborn persons, because it emphasises that what the couple did was a mistake; unborn people are not mistakes but opportunities for spiritual growth and life. However, I also realise that I have a responsibility to all humans (especially life I created) to cherish and love them, and protect their right to live, so on that level I can empathise with the responsibility argument. I would not
blame myself if ever I became pregnant outside of marriage. I would see it as an opportunity, a gift from God, a way to fulfil childbearing desires, a way to bless either myself or someone else reliable who wants to raise the child. I would not have an abortion, and would strongly discourage anyone else from
doing so because the moral repercussions of such an act are serious with long-lasting consequences. So what you say, with respect, reads to me like self-blame. You have nothing to reproach yourself wherewith, and you would not deserve to die just because you took a “risk” to have sex, even with stringent
BC and sexual refusal practices. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you but I take the view that women’s lives are very important and they shouldn’t be downplayed because of a “mistake”. Again, on rereading, it seems as if you did your best to be careful if you didn’t want to be pregnant but accepted the fact it could happen.
“I worry about the infantilisation present in (at least my own country's) abortion laws. When women are given a free pass for reckless or thoughtless action, while men are not, what does it say for women's ability to make sound judgements and bear
accountability as men do? Are we not as smart, prepared, and brave as them?”
Would you mind stretching my mind a little more by expounding exactly on what you mean by infantilisation in general, plus infantilisation in your own country, because I have heard the opposite view for a while. It is that women do not bear the same
risk as men, but a far greater one, because their lives are on the line every time they get pregnant. Therefore, to state that financial support is the same equally as pregnancy is downplaying the female contribution. I have to agree yet am very open to hearing a different opinion.
I think women get a free pass on pregnancy, due to biology, a lot of the time. Whereas men have to pay a lot of money which won’t impact their health or lives at all, although it will impact their pocketbooks a lot. Which is why they push women to get abortions, I think.
I believe I begin to see your reasoning. Due to the unfair burden placed on men to pay child support and take responsibility for their actions, men in turn pressure women to take the free road out (the abortion) so they do not have the unfair burden placed on them. Although quite a few advocates for legal abortion will
insist loud and clear that men should not have to pay child support if they don’t want to. I think in a way you could be onto something here. Giving men more responsibility does place them in a headship position over us rather, doesn’t it? So therefore, they can command us to have an abortion so we can be
available to them twenty-four-seven, and also so they don’t have to pay financially, correct? If you’re right, isn’t that making us into sex toys in the sense of conforming our bodies to what they want rather than being ourselves? Although advocates for legal abortion will insist that abortion is something that sets women free in every way – sexually, financially, etc. Due to the current way society views fertility as being in the man’s domain and not
the woman’s, and also due to the fact that contraception, sterilisation, and abortion have decreased the fear of pregnancy, I can understand their reasoning as well. I am for contraception and voluntary sterilisation due to the fact that they grant women this well-deserved freedom from the fear of pregnancy, as
no woman should be open to life except through her own volition, YET I cannot call the practice of denying an unborn person his/her life anything short of abominable.
I believe much of our difference comes from a spiritual divergence; for me, God plays no part in birth, abortion or womanhood. For me, it is a very practical, biological framework.
Tokophobia can be crippling (one of my dear friends has it, and it made Nursing very difficult at times for her). I'm impressed you recognise and own it.
The line between self-blame and self-accountability can be small (illustrated best in rape culture arguments). For me, it's more of a neutral, observational standpoint. If I play hockey without a helmet and get my teeth knocked out, is it the fault of the other player or did I take an assumed risk? I don't apply emotional burden on the idea of "mistakes" or errors or even bad choices; they are what they are.
When women are granted reprieve that men are not, it means they are held to a lower standard of personal responsibility. This essentially puts women in the "child" class, hence infantilisation, and is exactly the train of thought that kept women from having the same freedoms (education, dress, driving, voting) for so long, and put "hysteria" as a commitable mental illness.
Men are accountable from the second their sweat dries. Women are not, unless they choose to be so. That is a terrifying imbalance of power, to me, especially in light of paternity fraud and the fact that some men feel the loss of the unborn just as acutely as women who miscarry. The law has made me an unwilling and potentially capricious tyrant -- again, a child holding a loaded gun who will face no punishment if I squeeze.
Where I live, abortion is unrestricted. This means fully viable babies may be terminated at will, for free. The lack of financial requirement results in even more of a "free pass", and multiple abortions are common.
friend Infadelicious, and Shifty, know they have to comment at Secular
Pro-Life Perspectives if they want to see me again.
Also, since I think you might not come back, that's where I'll be if you want to chat again.
However, if they (PJ4, Infa, Shifty) read this they will know. I've enjoyed our correspondence in a remarkably non-trolly way, and I'm sure we'll cross paths again.
That's another prolife website I write my comments up at. They're looser than this one in what they'll allow and what they won't.
Shall we carry our conversation there? It was getting very interesting and I don't want to miss your further contributions, LOL :)
As for menstruation, it is treated as dirty and secret, rather than as the following: 1) an important part of being a woman
2) the quintessence of female sexuality
3) a spiritual, mind-opening experience where a woman finds she is more logical, more emotional, more intuitive, more spiritual, more everything good
I am at present on my own menstrual journey. I have experienced both painless menarche and agonising periods where I had to spend the day in bed, but am getting back up on the scale, and working hard towards painlessness.
A couple articles that have helped me are things like this, as they helped me to try to value menstruation again:
http://jarm.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/jarm/article/download/18049/16812
http://www.academia.edu/3684332/The_Value_of_Menstruation_Positive_Meanings_of_the_Female_Lived-Body_Experience
I wrote up a long comment about why abortion is so damaging to society from a spiritual perspective as well; I hope you can read it sometime, and I reference Sharon Maloney, PhD's work as well:
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/12/what-creates-babies-sex-or-choices.html#comment-2404203985
Also women can reduce or even overcome negative PMS. One reason negative PMS affects performance so much is that society doesn't attend to women's needs. Also, in the West, we use a lot of contaminants; I deal with that a little in these comments:
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/friendlyatheist1/nine_dead_in_charleston_church_shooting/#comment-2404526780
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/friendlyatheist1/nine_dead_in_charleston_church_shooting/#comment-2401058416
The thing is, unborn persons will be affected by their environment, and if we don't keep women healthy for their own sakes, they will definitely have a more difficult time having children as well as being a woman during certain times of the month. So women's talk is essential to caring for pregnant persons, and far more tied into prolife causes than we think.
Thanks for not downplaying the difficulties of pregnancy. So many prolifers do it and it's not good. Very interesting perspective on abortion weakening and infantilising women too.
I'll write up more on your thoughts later, but please let PJ4, her friend Infadelicious, and Shifty, know they have to comment at Secular Pro-Life Perspectives if they want to see me again.
No double standard in pusillanimity; I am referring to you directly, not all those who espouse similar views. If we want to ripple out, my goal is equity; can a man terminate his lover's pregnancy with ease, unconstrained by law, because he contributed 50% genetic material? Does he own that foetus?
Finally, no class, gender, colour or creed is "Sovereign" in a Democracy.